Re: A VERY QUICK FIRST SCAN OF 'LOOKING FOR MADELEINE'

by sallypelt 11.09.14 20:27

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

Lots of get outs in that interview.

Bluebag, they met with Gerry and Kate McCann!!!

by MissesWillYa 11.09.14 20:29

How did the word "haters" get past a serious editor? I can't believe it's used in the book at all, let alone throughout its content. It must be like watching a trashy talk show, a la "Ricki Lake," circa 1995.

by sallypelt 11.09.14 20:35

Reviews on Amazon:

I would give you a zero star if possible. Have you two sold your souls to the devil? Disgusting and disgraceful.

I waiting for the publication of this book with anticipation only to be sadly disappointed , this author to my mind has plucked random ideas out of the air with no evidence to substantiate them, I feel he decided the parents innocent of involvement prior to writing the book and set out to prove that ignoring well established facts about the case. Very poor

This book promised to be 'the first independent, objective account of the case'.

I received the kindle edition this morning and was hoping to find at least some exclusive revelations from the authors, who apparently nearly won a Pulitzer for a previous book. They must have worked harder on that than on this.

They seem to have used their team of interns to copy and paste article after article from newspaper websites and blogs while rehashing Kate McCann's own book.

The authors declare their allegiance to the McCann cause right up front and hammer home their point of view at the beginning of most chapters.

'Speculation that the McCanns played a role in their daughter's fate, the authors demonstrate, is unfounded.'

'The authors.. have not seen a shred of evidence to indicate that Gerry and Kate McCann, any member of their holiday group.. were at any stage - guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann's disappearance.'

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

'Despite there being no evidence of any wrongdoing on the McCanns' part their critics proliferated.'

Yes, yes, Anthony, we get the picture. We understand that if there had have been sufficient evidence, the McCanns would have been charged by now.

And the lawyers could no doubt wave this through, thus enabling you and your publishers to profit at the expense of a missing child.

But seriously, Mr. Summers.. No questions? Not one?

If you want a partner book to Kate McCann's, this is for you. But if you want to learn anything interesting, save your cash.

The definitive account won't be written for a while yet.

by plebgate 11.09.14 20:37

Snipped from Sallypelt's post 8.22 page 3 of this thread:

"
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.”

IMO what this level of criticism shows is that we are in the age of the internet where the "silent majority" can at last have a say. clapping

by Guest 11.09.14 20:45

sallypelt wrote:

“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?’

If this incident actually happened I will eat my crash helmet. I mean, I can't even begin to remember how often, as a ten year old, my interest in the news stories of the day was piqued by hearing mention of my unused forename.

Pull the other one summersandswann, it does indeed have bells on it.

by MissesWillYa 11.09.14 20:48

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
sallypelt wrote:

“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?’

If this incident actually happened I will eat my crash helmet. I mean, I can't even begin to remember how often, as a ten year old, my interest in the news stories of the day was piqued by hearing mention of my unused forename.

Pull the other one summersandswann, it does indeed have bells on it.

Now I know why stories like this didn't catch my attention as a kid - my parents invented my middle name themselves and I've never heard of anyone else sharing it.

by Guest 11.09.14 20:48

sallypelt wrote:

I received the kindle edition this morning and was hoping to find at least some exclusive revelations from the authors, who apparently nearly won a Pulitzer for a previous book. They must have worked harder on that than on this.

Nearly won a Pulitzer eh? Reminds me of that time I nearly won the 100m sprint at the Olympics. It was only not being there and not being able to run 9.80s that separated me from the gold medal.

by plebgate 11.09.14 20:49

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
sallypelt wrote:

“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?’

If this incident actually happened I will eat my crash helmet. I mean, I can't even begin to remember how often, as a ten year old, my interest in the news stories of the day was piqued by hearing mention of my unused forename.

Pull the other one summersandswann, it does indeed have bells on it.

Of course they could always have told their little un that The Met are investigating Maddie's disappearance and left it at that. titter

by petunia 11.09.14 20:50

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.”

I can believe the McCann's made a request but surley the Met would tell them to bugger off, wouldn't they thinking

by Guest 11.09.14 20:56

sallypelt wrote:
BlueBag wrote:How much contact did the authors have with the Media Monitoring Unit though?

Lots of get outs in that interview.

Bluebag, they met with Gerry and Kate McCann!!!

They said they met them once and Gerry and Kate did not try to influence them.

But what about pink persons?

by Guest 11.09.14 21:03

plebgate wrote:

Of course they could always have told their little un that The Met are investigating Maddie's disappearance and left it at that.

It does make one wonder what the correct parental response to difficult questions about the news stories of the day should be. If my daughter asks me what's going on in Syria, am I failing as a father if I don't compile a comprehensive intelligence dossier obtained solely from personal research and interviews with primary sources?

thinking

by aiyoyo 11.09.14 21:03

"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.”

An initial meeting aside? How many times did they meet? They did not interview the mccanns but they had met the Mccanns and possibly more than once. Good grief, they have taken a leaf out of G & K's style....confusion is good.
Already we are getting inconsistent and evolving story....hmmm...Did the media mislead us when it reported that S&S did not interview the Mcs, or did the writers lie? Lie to start and lie till the end....familiar pattern?
I smell a rat in this whole thing. It's a clear sign the Mcs endorsed this book.

by MRNOODLES 11.09.14 21:04

BlueBag wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
BlueBag wrote:How much contact did the authors have with the Media Monitoring Unit though?

Lots of get outs in that interview.

Bluebag, they met with Gerry and Kate McCann!!!

They said they met them once and Gerry and Kate did not try to influence them.

But what about pink persons?

Or the McCanns thought let them get on with it. If it's negative we'll just sue them for the profit they made. big grin

by plebgate 11.09.14 21:05

Have the Met. asked them what reasons there could be for the apparent discrepancies?

by Praiaaa 11.09.14 21:05

I tried to leave feedback supporting the latest review - it was indeed helpful to me as it has saved me wasting 6.99 on a book that contains nothing that is supported by the police files.
However, Amazon seems to require me to leave my full name, and I am not comfortable doing that as a French person, now citizen of the UK , it is an unusual name and I still live in hope of being selected for the jury when the fraud case comes to trial at the Old Bailey...

by Guest 11.09.14 21:08

"An initial meeting aside, a meeting at which Madeleine’s parents made no attempt at all to influence our thinking,"

I can't believe this.

Unless K&G already knew what their thinking was (ie. they had a remit).

Are they saying Gerry never mentioned the dogs?

by plebgate 11.09.14 21:08

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
plebgate wrote:

Of course they could always have told their little un that The Met are investigating Maddie's disappearance and left it at that.

It does make one wonder what the correct parental response to difficult questions about the news stories of the day should be. If my daughter asks me what's going on in Syria, am I failing as a father if I don't compile a comprehensive intelligence dossier obtained solely from personal research and interviews with primary sources?

by aiyoyo 11.09.14 21:17

BlueBag wrote:
"An initial meeting aside, a meeting at which Madeleine’s parents made no attempt at all to influence our thinking,"

I can't believe this.

Unless K&G already knew what their thinking was (ie. they had a remit).

Are they saying Gerry never mentioned the dogs?

They are prize winning writers, supposed to have done extensive research and claimed to be objective, how can they rely on K&G to tell them anything or take their account at face value?

The fact that they were evasive about the meeting, also taking a defensive stance for themselves and Mcs about the meeting means there is more than meet the eyes. Think the opposite, when the writers say this it means the opposite. They are doing a pinky?

by **Nina** 11.09.14 21:25

I have been in here for three days now trying to fight this book.A very long thread was removed by the authors and another replaces it yet they allow us to remain. Anyone wanting to come along ? https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anthony-Summers-Robbyn-Swan/108905915872218

by Naz_Nomad 11.09.14 21:50

Nina wrote:I have been in here for three days now trying to fight this book.A very long thread was removed by the authors and another replaces it yet they allow us to remain. Anyone wanting to come along ? https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anthony-Summers-Robbyn-Swan/108905915872218

I tried posting this " So, in the title, we have the very first lie "The first independent investigation...". I think Richard D Hall did it first. " and tried to leave a link to his documentary. But it seems I am blocked from doing so. Same on the Sun website. Anyone else having this trouble? Seems like A link to Richard's documentary is unwelcome in some places. roll

by Guest 11.09.14 21:59

Naz_Nomad wrote:
Nina wrote:I have been in here for three days now trying to fight this book.A very long thread was removed by the authors and another replaces it yet they allow us to remain. Anyone wanting to come along ? https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anthony-Summers-Robbyn-Swan/108905915872218

I tried posting this " So, in the title, we have the very first lie "The first independent investigation...". I think Richard D Hall did it first. " and tried to leave a link to his documentary. But it seems I am blocked from doing so. Same on the Sun website. Anyone else having this trouble? Seems like A link to Richard's documentary is unwelcome in some places.

How about a link to youtube?

by **Nina** 11.09.14 22:07

WMD wrote:
Naz_Nomad wrote:
Nina wrote:I have been in here for three days now trying to fight this book.A very long thread was removed by the authors and another replaces it yet they allow us to remain. Anyone wanting to come along ? https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anthony-Summers-Robbyn-Swan/108905915872218

I tried posting this " So, in the title, we have the very first lie "The first independent investigation...". I think Richard D Hall did it first. " and tried to leave a link to his documentary. But it seems I am blocked from doing so. Same on the Sun website. Anyone else having this trouble? Seems like A link to Richard's documentary is unwelcome in some places.
How about a link to youtube?

Sorry WMD I gave the link to the authors facebook page as that is where I have been for three days.
Naz Nomad many have posted on the page, sorry you couldn't access the page, there was a link to Richard Hall's videos posted a couple of days ago. That very long thread has now been deleted unfortunately.

by Guest 11.09.14 22:19

@Nina,someone posted a link to R Hall's site and it works,about 35 minutes ago.Am I aloud to name the poster.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anthony-Summers-Robbyn-Swan/108905915872218

by Naz_Nomad 11.09.14 22:30

Nina wrote:
WMD wrote:
Naz_Nomad wrote:
Nina wrote:I have been in here for three days now trying to fight this book.A very long thread was removed by the authors and another replaces it yet they allow us to remain. Anyone wanting to come along ? https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anthony-Summers-Robbyn-Swan/108905915872218

I tried posting this " So, in the title, we have the very first lie "The first independent investigation...". I think Richard D Hall did it first. " and tried to leave a link to his documentary. But it seems I am blocked from doing so. Same on the Sun website. Anyone else having this trouble? Seems like A link to Richard's documentary is unwelcome in some places.
How about a link to youtube?

Sorry WMD I gave the link to the authors facebook page as that is where I have been for three days.
Naz Nomad many have posted on the page, sorry you couldn't access the page, there was a link to Richard Hall's videos posted a couple of days ago. That very long thread has now been deleted unfortunately.

It's Ok, my comment mysteriously appeared, and has now been jumped on by both Pamela Gurney, who I will take great pleasure in ripping to shreds over the next few days, and someone called Jacci, ditto.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.09.14 23:13

COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 17, CONTINUED

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

One of the issues about the case I have raised many times is how both the strange lawyer Marcos Aragao Correia and the private detectives from Metodo 3 were all employed by the McCann Team, with Brian Kennedy as the man to lead the private investigation. And I have repeated many times how Marcos Aragao Correia lied twice about how he came to be involved in the case. His first story was that underworld sources had told him that Madeleine had been abducted and killed. His second story was that two days after Madeleine’s reported disappearance, he had had a vision about her. Both were lies.

Incidentally, Summers and Swan did not mention what Marcos Aragao Correia said he saw in that vision, which was in fcat of a very large man strangling a young blonde girl. Small wonder Summers and Swan cut that bit out of their book.

But on p. 219 of their book, we do learn something new about Marcos Aragao Correia and Metodo 3. Well, new according to Summers and Swan, that is.

Here’s what they claim:

“The authors learned…that Metodo 3’s investigators knew all along that Aragao Correia’s claim to have received an underworld tip was only a cover story. The lawyer had made it clear in his early contacts with the detectives that his information had come in a vision”.

Summers & Swan may get that past people who know little about the case, but surely not past all of us here.

So Metodo 3 knew all about Correia’s first lie? (that Madeleine had been abducted killed). So why, then, during the first search for Madeleine’s bones, did he repeat this lie to the world’s press? Why, for that matter, did Marcos Correia not admit at that stage that he had been dealing with Metodo 3 since at least November 2007 and indeed had met Metodo 3’s top men at the Arade Dam on 10 December the previous year.

Furthermore, why did Marcos Aragao Correia also lie by pretending that he was simply a ‘Good Samaritan’ paying for the search of the dam out of his own pocket, when he later admitted that he was in the pay of Metodo 3, Brian Kennedy and the McCann Team?

Moreover, Summers and Swan speak of ‘information’ that Marcos Aragao Correia received in ‘a vision’. Correia received information this way? Well, that’s the impression given in their ‘most definitive possible’ book.

Almost unbelievably, Summers and Swan fail to tell their readers that Correia later admitted that this second version of how he came to be interested in the Madeleine McCann case - the vision - was also a barefaced lie. Why did they exclude that?

They must know, because they quote from some of Correia’s later statements and articles where he makes this admission.
Summers and Swan continue by quoting Elisenda Villena, said to be the head of Metodo 3’s Barcelona office, as claiming:

“We had leads suggesting that Madeleine’s body had been thrown into a lake”. I don’t believe that for one moment. Metodo 3 have a proven track record of lying and deceit, notably perhaps, in this case, their outright and outrageous lies that Madeleine was alive, that they knew who was holding her and where, and that Madeleine would be ‘home by Christmas’ .

Summers and Swan go on (p. 220) to quote Villena as suggesting that the disappearances of Joana Cipriano [in 2005] and Madeleine McCann [in 2007] “may have been connected and should be further investigated”.

This of course is an echo of very similar comments made by self-publicist and professed expert on paedophiles Mark Williams-Thomas, who back in 2007 suggested that both girls may have been abducted by the same abductor.

For the information of anyone reading here who is not acquainted with the disappearance of Joana Cipriano, the bald facts are these.

Eight-year-old Joana’s mother reported her missing. The truth is that on returning from an errand to the shops, Joana discovered her mother (Leonor Cipriano) in bed with her uncle. She was brutally murdered, her body cut up and disposed of.

Later they both voluntarily admitted their crime and were duly prosecuted and sentenced to prison terms of 16 years and 8 months and 16 years. The senior detective who successfully investigated this vicious crime was Dr Goncalo Amaral.

Now, on p. 220, Summers and Swan go on to devote three pages about how the McCann Team apparently took seriously the demented claims of a Nigerian psychic and Nigerian government information officer, Salisu Suleiman. Suleiman then published a book in the U.S. (in 2011) called ‘Madeleine and the Seventh Mystic’. Suleiman later said that he had “set out to see if we could use the powers of extrasensory perception some people possessed to find Madeleine”. Quite why this rubbish fills three pages of Summers & Swan’s book I don’t know, nor why the McCann Team took it so seriously.

More later

by jeanmonroe 12.09.14 0:04

“And – this really got us: ‘How long would you look for me, Mummy?’ Robbyn realised she didn’t have good answers
====================================================

NO good 'answers'?

Here's the answer, Robbyn, and the ONLY 'answer' there ever would be:

"FOREVER, darling, F-O-R-E-V-E-R!"

I wonder why the McCanns didn't call S&S to 'testify' for them, as character 'witnesses' at their libel claim case?

They'd have knocked the witnesses they DID 'call' into a cocked hat, wouldn't they?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Children are for life, not just for summer holidays"

by jeanmonroe 12.09.14 0:31

Now, on p. 220, Summers and Swan go on to devote three pages about how the McCann Team apparently took seriously the demented claims of a Nigerian psychic and Nigerian government information officer, Salisu Suleiman. Suleiman then published a book in the U.S. (in 2011) called ‘Madeleine and the Seventh Mystic’. Suleiman later said that he had “set out to see if we could use the powers of extrasensory perception some people possessed to find Madeleine”. Quite why this rubbish fills three pages of Summers & Swan’s book I don’t know, nor why the McCann Team took it so seriously.
-------------------------------------------------------

Well THAT (ESP) worked a 'treat' then, didn't it?

WORLD EXCLUSIFF!

"Maddie found safe and well by psychics"

Oh, hang on......

by Okeydokey 12.09.14 0:57

For me a key test of any book claiming to tell the whole story objectively will be whether they mention the Gaspar letter. If they have no reference to it at all then you can be assured the book is not a full and objective account. [For the avoidance of doubt, that is not to say one has to accept the letter contains relevant evidence, but it is clearly an important document and the fact its transmission to the PJ was delayed for several months is also noteworthy.] It will be interesting to see if Summers and Swan go anywhere near that. I am confident they won't.

Another test will be an assessment of how M Oldfield could - as he claimed - see the twins' rising and falling chests indicating they were breathing (in semi darkness, through the mesh sides of the cots at a distance of some 8 feet). Similarly you'll want to see a treatment of JT's claim of what she could see at a distance of 30 feet in poor lighting. Also, consideration of why the Tapas 9 didn't immediately begin a systematic search in the direction suggested by JT's alleged sighting of the "abductor", given JT had communicated that sighting a couple of minutes after 10pm.

Of course there are lots of tests, but those are important ones.

by jeanmonroe 12.09.14 1:38

Okeydokey

Similarly you'll want to see a treatment of JT's claim of what she could see at a distance of 30 feet in poor lighting
-------------------------------------------

Surely you mean what JT 'saw' (the burglator) at a 'distance' of 50 (FIFTY) METRES, 161 (ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY ONE) 'FEET' as BOTH GM and KM ratified and signed as TRUE, in their statements of 4th May 2007.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm

It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.

No more is said. Reads, ratifies, signs.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm

Later, a member of the group, Russell's partner Jane, when she went to her apartment to see her children at around 9.15pm, saw from the back [rear] about 50 metres away, on the perimeter road of the club, a long-haired person, in what she thinks were jeans, with a child in his arms and walking very quickly. But she is better able to tell you about that herself.

She has nothing else to add. After having read the deed, she confirms it, ratifies it and signs it with the interpreter.

NOW, THAT'S PROPER 'RESEARCH! winkwink

by Okeydokey 12.09.14 1:51

jeanmonroe wrote:Similarly you'll want to see a treatment of JT's claim of what she could see at a distance of 30 feet in poor lighting
-------------------------------------------

Surely you mean what JT 'saw' (the burglator) at a 'distance' of 50 (FIFTY) METRES, 161 (ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY ONE) 'FEET' as BOTH GM and KM ratified and signed as TRUE, in their statements of 4th May 2007.

My apologies - looks like I misremembered that! You make the point even more dramatically.