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

#61 · by Liz Eagles 23.09.14 11:15

plebgate wrote:
Brian Griffin wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
tiny wrote:No one with any brains would take this pair of muppets seriously,would they?.

That's not the point.

The point is that the MSM are presenting them to the uninformed general public as having written the "explosive" "definitive account".

It's all perception management... media management.

but has the "perception management" worked?

IMO there are thousands and thousands very disillusioned with the media and its management.

Media Management.

I've read a bit about 'shills'. I've seen the Twitter punch-ups.

There are always going to be zealous people on either side of an internet argument. This is manna from heaven to media management. Shills can be paid to be nuts on both sides of the argument. Get yourself a bunch of paid 'haters' alongside the easily led and promote your cause.

As Jim Gamble says...no need to name them.

This book is now reduced to S&S and Jim Gamble speaking of 'haters'. Who's pulling the strings?

I make no bones about disliking Twitter. It's open to manipulation. Facebook is the same imo. How many 'haters' could be paid shills to write really bad things in order to stir up a hornet nest?

Stephen Birch - I was the first person to comment on Birch's post on this forum...I think I wrote 'nutcase' and was royally ticked off by Candyfloss. Now Stephen Birch (I haven't changed my mind since my first post) made a big point of saying the Murats were taking him to court. They haven't as far as I know and neither have the McCanns.

So it's interesting to see a campaign for a book that has S&S and Jim Gamble almost screaming 'haters'.

That's media manipulation.

Oh, and if anyone does Twitter could they possibly ask Jim Gamble what the photograph of him standing on a podium in front of microphones between the UK and USA flags is for? and could they also ask him why there's a stock shot of Table Mountain, Cape Town?

Given Jim's tweet (my underlining)

Jim Gamble @JimGamble_INEQE · 12h
U never hv 2name them. Jst mention #Haters & their ranting bile spews out. Same self serving deluded few pretending 2b more than they are.

I'd like to know if Jim is open to answering a few questions about his Twitter image.

#62 · by Brian Griffin 23.09.14 11:53

'This book is now reduced to S&S and Jim Gamble speaking of 'haters'.'

They've got Gurning Pamela too, don't forget!

#63 · by Guest 23.09.14 12:40

aquila

There are always going to be zealous people on either side of an internet argument. This is manna from heaven to media management. Shills can be paid to be nuts on both sides of the argument. Get yourself a bunch of paid 'haters' alongside the easily led and promote your cause.

It's pretty obvious that that's the game on most internet forums.

They surround attempts at serious questioning and debate with nut cases that can easily have the finger pointed at them. EVERYONE gets included by association.

#64 · by **Tony Bennett** 23.09.14 12:47

aquila wrote:
Stephen Birch - I was the first person to comment on Birch's post on this forum...I think I wrote 'nutcase' and was royally ticked off by Candyfloss. Now Stephen Birch (I haven't changed my mind since my first post) made a big point of saying the Murats were taking him to court. They haven't as far as I know and neither have the McCanns.

Yes, candyfloss was very insistent that we gave plenty of space to discussing the self-promoting Birch and his preposterous theory - whilst at the same time she was always wholly convinced that Operation Grange had every appearance of being a genuine, wholehearted search for the truth.

She was a widely-respected Moderator though, who saw the forum through a couple of crises, and that's one significant achievement she'll always have to her name

#65 · by Google.Gaspar.Statements 23.09.14 13:19

Tony Bennett wrote:
aquila wrote:
Stephen Birch - I was the first person to comment on Birch's post on this forum...I think I wrote 'nutcase' and was royally ticked off by Candyfloss. Now Stephen Birch (I haven't changed my mind since my first post) made a big point of saying the Murats were taking him to court. They haven't as far as I know and neither have the McCanns.
Yes, candyfloss was very insistent that we gave plenty of space to discussing the self-promoting Birch and his preposterous theory - whilst at the same time she was always wholly convinced that Operation Grange had every appearance of being a genuine, wholehearted search for the truth.

She was a widely-respected Moderator though, who saw the forum through a couple of crises, and that's one significant achievement she'll always have to her name

Candyfloss should also be thanked for taking all the trolls with her when she left. It's a much more pleasant forum to be part of these days. I found it quite hard to bear that she allowed the trolls to stay so long.

#66 · by **Tony Bennett** 23.09.14 13:34

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
Candyfloss should also be thanked for taking all the trolls with her when she left. It's a much more pleasant forum to be part of these days. I found it quite hard to bear that she allowed the trolls to stay so long.

Well, without mentioning any names, WLBTS, travis macbickle & Andrew77R excepted, I say 'Amen' to that, GGS

#67 · by HelenMeg 23.09.14 15:19

Tony Bennett wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
Candyfloss should also be thanked for taking all the trolls with her when she left. It's a much more pleasant forum to be part of these days. I found it quite hard to bear that she allowed the trolls to stay so long.
Well, without mentioning any names, WLBTS, travis macbickle & Andrew77R excepted, I say 'Amen' to that, GGS

Yes - much less forum stress now

#68 · by Tangled Web 23.09.14 16:38

Anybody seen this???

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Book.htm

Sorry can only copy link, bit of a technophobe!

#69 · by Brian Griffin 23.09.14 17:12

A message to readers of Summers and Swan book 'Looking for Madeleine'

Sitemap

This information belongs to the Ministerio Publico in Portimao, Portugal.
It was released to the public on 4 August 2008 in accordance with Portuguese Law

www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk hosts the Original Portuguese files alongside the translations into English, with file reference number and the translators name attached.

Although S&S say they were using the Original files. I must question why S&S did not give the Portuguese reference number to each file they needed, with credits to the translator that they used.

If these procedures where carried out, readers would have been able to check for themselves if what is in the book is true or not.

This would have saved S&S a lot of the backlash and heartache,

McCann PJ Files

In the book it has left us with the presumption “but not the proof” that they have their own Portuguese copy of the files, with their own translators.

#70 · by aiyoyo 23.09.14 19:32

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
Candyfloss should also be thanked for taking all the trolls with her when she left. It's a much more pleasant forum to be part of these days. I found it quite hard to bear that she allowed the trolls to stay so long.

With due respect, I don't think it's fair to label them as trolls though.

People dissenting the Mcs don't like to be labelled as"haters", nor would reasonable people banned from S&S's FB like to be termed as trolls. In the same vein, labelling banned members as "trolls" because they fall foul of rules, or fall foul of TB or other member for that matter is unjustified and unnecessary. Otherwise it would be an irony wouldn't it?

I most certainly object to being termed as a 'hater. I don't hate the Mcs. I don't know them personally to feel any kind of emotion for them one way or another. I'm sure banned members on the side of Madeleine don't like to be termed as trolls either.

.

#71 · by Google.Gaspar.Statements 23.09.14 20:10

aiyoyo wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
Candyfloss should also be thanked for taking all the trolls with her when she left. It's a much more pleasant forum to be part of these days. I found it quite hard to bear that she allowed the trolls to stay so long.

With due respect, I don't think it's fair to label them as trolls though.

People dissenting the Mcs don't like to be labelled as"haters", nor would reasonable people banned from S&S's FB like to be termed as trolls. In the same vein, labelling banned members as "trolls" because they fall foul of rules, or fall foul of TB or other member for that matter is unjustified and unnecessary. Otherwise it would be an irony wouldn't it?

I most certainly object to being termed as a 'hater. I don't hate the Mcs. I don't know them personally to feel any kind of emotion for them one way or another. I'm sure banned members on the side of Madeleine don't like to be termed as trolls either.

.

Troll (Internet)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ltr]For a Wikipedia essay on the topic, see meta:What is a troll?
"Trolling" redirects here. For other uses, see Troll (disambiguation).

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈ t r oʊ l /, /ˈ t r ɒ l /) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,^[1] by posting inflammatory,^[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.^[4]
This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."^[5]^[6][/ltr]

#72 · by **Nina** 23.09.14 21:13

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
Candyfloss should also be thanked for taking all the trolls with her when she left. It's a much more pleasant forum to be part of these days. I found it quite hard to bear that she allowed the trolls to stay so long.

With due respect, I don't think it's fair to label them as trolls though.

People dissenting the Mcs don't like to be labelled as"haters", nor would reasonable people banned from S&S's FB like to be termed as trolls. In the same vein, labelling banned members as "trolls" because they fall foul of rules, or fall foul of TB or other member for that matter is unjustified and unnecessary. Otherwise it would be an irony wouldn't it?

I most certainly object to being termed as a 'hater. I don't hate the Mcs. I don't know them personally to feel any kind of emotion for them one way or another. I'm sure banned members on the side of Madeleine don't like to be termed as trolls either.

.
Troll (Internet)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ltr]For a Wikipedia essay on the topic, see meta:What is a troll?
"Trolling" redirects here. For other uses, see Troll (disambiguation).

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈ t r oʊ l /, /ˈ t r ɒ l /) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,^[1] by posting inflammatory,^[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.^[4]
This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."^[5]^[6][/ltr]

I am very angry at this label, troll. I am a member of the new forum and certainly not to my knowledge never done anything by word or deed to discredit this forum, which and whose members I hold in high esteem.
On the new forum I am Lorraine.
Now ban me.

#73 · by Brian Griffin 23.09.14 21:35

The word 'troll' has been so oft used it is now on a par with calling someone a 'racist' if they mention, for example, immigration. It's dishonest and now holds no power. It's not even the correct usage of the word. But surely, in the Internet sense, everyone is a troll to someone out there if they hold a view other than one's own. Bottom line - it's bollox!

#74 · by Guest 23.09.14 21:44

Nina wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
Candyfloss should also be thanked for taking all the trolls with her when she left. It's a much more pleasant forum to be part of these days. I found it quite hard to bear that she allowed the trolls to stay so long.

With due respect, I don't think it's fair to label them as trolls though.

People dissenting the Mcs don't like to be labelled as"haters", nor would reasonable people banned from S&S's FB like to be termed as trolls. In the same vein, labelling banned members as "trolls" because they fall foul of rules, or fall foul of TB or other member for that matter is unjustified and unnecessary. Otherwise it would be an irony wouldn't it?

I most certainly object to being termed as a 'hater. I don't hate the Mcs. I don't know them personally to feel any kind of emotion for them one way or another. I'm sure banned members on the side of Madeleine don't like to be termed as trolls either.

.
Troll (Internet)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For a Wikipedia essay on the topic, see meta:What is a troll?
"Trolling" redirects here. For other uses, see Troll (disambiguation).

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈ t r oʊ l /, /ˈ t r ɒ l /) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,^[1] by posting inflammatory,^[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.^[4]
This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."^[5]^[6]

I am very angry at this label, troll. I am a member of the new forum and certainly not to my knowledge never done anything by word or deed to discredit this forum, which and whose members I hold in high esteem.
On the new forum I am Lorraine.
Now ban me.

Nina, please don't be angry, I think the posters were referring to the disruptors who have left this forum, not to long-standing members such as yourself.

#75 · by **sharonl** 23.09.14 21:56

Thank you for clearing that up LIR

No one is being banned merely for posting on another forum.

Can we get this thread back on topic now please

#76 · by Woofer 23.09.14 22:14

Brian Griffin wrote:The word 'troll' has been so oft used it is now on a par with calling someone a 'racist' if they mention, for example, immigration. It's dishonest and now holds no power. It's not even the correct usage of the word. But surely, in the Internet sense, everyone is a troll to someone out there if they hold a view other than one's own. Bottom line - it's bollox!

Yes - thanks Brian - so very very true.

Just think on that - oh thou with fix-ed views.

#77 · by Guest 23.09.14 22:38

Nina wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
Candyfloss should also be thanked for taking all the trolls with her when she left. It's a much more pleasant forum to be part of these days. I found it quite hard to bear that she allowed the trolls to stay so long.

With due respect, I don't think it's fair to label them as trolls though.

People dissenting the Mcs don't like to be labelled as"haters", nor would reasonable people banned from S&S's FB like to be termed as trolls. In the same vein, labelling banned members as "trolls" because they fall foul of rules, or fall foul of TB or other member for that matter is unjustified and unnecessary. Otherwise it would be an irony wouldn't it?

I most certainly object to being termed as a 'hater. I don't hate the Mcs. I don't know them personally to feel any kind of emotion for them one way or another. I'm sure banned members on the side of Madeleine don't like to be termed as trolls either.

.
Troll (Internet)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ltr]For a Wikipedia essay on the topic, see meta:What is a troll?
"Trolling" redirects here. For other uses, see Troll (disambiguation).

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈ t r oʊ l /, /ˈ t r ɒ l /) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,^[1] by posting inflammatory,^[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.^[4]
This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."^[5]^[6][/ltr]

I am very angry at this label, troll. I am a member of the new forum and certainly not to my knowledge never done anything by word or deed to discredit this forum, which and whose members I hold in high esteem.
On the new forum I am Lorraine.
Now ban me.

As has been said before, there is a clique of people - call them what you will - who have admitted being here to target Tony. Andrew77R registers here regularly with various usernames and has been welcomed on the new forum, along with several others of our banned members. Andrew has sent threatening emails to Tony saying he will go to his house.

As Sharon said, nobody will be banned for posting on another forum but I hope you will agree that people like Andrew who come here specifically to target Tony should be banned?

#78 · by **Nina** 23.09.14 22:54

admin wrote:
Nina wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
Candyfloss should also be thanked for taking all the trolls with her when she left. It's a much more pleasant forum to be part of these days. I found it quite hard to bear that she allowed the trolls to stay so long.

With due respect, I don't think it's fair to label them as trolls though.

People dissenting the Mcs don't like to be labelled as"haters", nor would reasonable people banned from S&S's FB like to be termed as trolls. In the same vein, labelling banned members as "trolls" because they fall foul of rules, or fall foul of TB or other member for that matter is unjustified and unnecessary. Otherwise it would be an irony wouldn't it?

I most certainly object to being termed as a 'hater. I don't hate the Mcs. I don't know them personally to feel any kind of emotion for them one way or another. I'm sure banned members on the side of Madeleine don't like to be termed as trolls either.

.
Troll (Internet)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ltr]For a Wikipedia essay on the topic, see meta:What is a troll?
"Trolling" redirects here. For other uses, see Troll (disambiguation).

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈ t r oʊ l /, /ˈ t r ɒ l /) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,^[1] by posting inflammatory,^[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.^[4]
This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."^[5]^[6][/ltr]

I am very angry at this label, troll. I am a member of the new forum and certainly not to my knowledge never done anything by word or deed to discredit this forum, which and whose members I hold in high esteem.
On the new forum I am Lorraine.
Now ban me.

As has been said before, there is a clique of people - call them what you will - who have admitted being here to target Tony. Andrew77R registers here regularly with various usernames and has been welcomed on the new forum, along with several others of our banned members. Andrew has sent threatening emails to Tony saying he will go to his house.

As Sharon said, nobody will be banned for posting on another forum but I hope you will agree that people like Andrew who come here specifically to target Tony should be banned?

Admin, sorry to be off topic again but yes I agree anyone targeting another member should, after warnings, be banned. As far as Tony is concerned, I have nothing but admiration for him, and he knows this.

#79 · by waiting for justice 24.09.14 7:37

OMG, personally, if someone sends threatening messages and says they're going to a persons house, I'm not sure they deserve a warning.
That is completely unacceptable in my eyes and deserves an immediate ban.

When you see the people on the news who are prosecuted for this type of behaviour it is unlikely they'd successfully be able to make a trip to Mcdonalds let alone find and actually carry out their threats. That aside, there is no place for it on or off the net. Seriously, have people got nothing better to do in life?

#80 · by Guest 24.09.14 7:55

Has anyone seen Summers and Swann answer ANYTHING yet?

They said they would.

#81 · by plebgate 24.09.14 8:02

Not having read their book, but reading the posts here and the twitter feed, I too wonder when questions will be answered. Will be very surprised if they are, but I did laugh at one of the tweets leading on from S&S answering questions.

The poster wrote something like they would write their own book with 48 chapters, each chapter being one of the questions Mrs. did not answer. laughat

#82 · by Snifferdog 24.09.14 15:24

plebgate wrote:Not having read their book, but reading the posts here and the twitter feed, I too wonder when questions will be answered. Will be very surprised if they are, but I did laugh at one of the tweets leading on from S&S answering questions.

The poster wrote something like they would write their own book with 48 chapters, each chapter being one of the questions Mrs. did not answer.

Sorry but the emoticons place themselves wherever my cursor decides to hide whilst I am choosing one, and they're very very hard to remove popcornandcola

once they have ensconced themselves.. sarcastic

. Ah got it!!!

#83 · by **PeterMac** 26.09.14 10:51

http://asaucesaid.blogspot.de/2014/09/premature-ejaculation.html

A Sauce Said...
A blog about the McCanns, the media, money and the Met.
Friday, 26 September 2014

Premature Ejaculation?

At Scotland Yard, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood met with us at the outset, spoke frankly, but made it clear that he and his colleagues could not favour us – or any part of the media community – over any other parties.
- A Note on Sources in 'Looking for Madeleine' by Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

According to a Metropolitan Police document seen by this blog, DCI Andy Redwood and another unnamed MPS Detective Inspector met with Anthony Summers and Rubby (sic) Swan at 1200 on Friday 15th February 2013.
The Incident Message notes that the authors:
".. are researching a book on Madeleine with the knowledge of Mr and Mrs MCCANN and our contact details were supplied by them."
The message states, in bold type:
"It was made absolutely clear that any approach to nominals in this case would be detrimental to our objective of building up a productive working relationship with the Portuguese. Our clear priority is to find out what happened to Madeleine and nothing should distract from that."

It goes on to say
"Absolutely no “off the record” comments or other information were made/given. They were politely advised that all the information is in the public domain via the PJ files on the internet, and whilst we understood the interest and value in such a book that would extend to telling the story of this investigative review, their time would be best spent getting up to speed on the available files and forming their own opinion on it."
The internal message, for Officers Information and classified as Low Priority, was revealed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The message also states:
"It was explained that despite agreeing to meet them, we were unable to assist in anyway re their project, even as far as giving them timescale’s for the review’s completion. (This was requested in order that they could tie in the publication of the book to that of our process’s end result.)"

In their book, Summers & Swan write, in July 2014:
"The authors wish to make clear at the outset that, after more than two years studying this controversial case, they have seen not a shred of evidence to indicate that Gerry and Kate 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."
Three years and three months after they launched their review, now a fully-fledged investigation, a 37 strong team of Met officers have yet to draw their own final conclusion.
The Met, it seems, were unable to fall in line with the publisher’s marketing plans.

Can it be that Summers and Swan’s book , described as ‘the definitive account of the Madeleine McCann case’, came rather too soon?

#84 · by Guest 26.09.14 10:58

The message also states:
"It was explained that despite agreeing to meet them, we were unable to assist in anyway re their project,

I don't believe it.

Why arrange a meeting to say "we can't help you" and waste everyone's time?

#85 · by HelenMeg 26.09.14 10:59

Thanks for drawing attention to this site! Read this page - referring to the NOTW reward money of £21,000 given to the fund and not acknowledged in the website, after certain pages were removed later (but thankfully captured forever!)

http://asaucesaid.blogspot.de/2014_07_01_archive.html

#86 · by sallypelt 26.09.14 11:49

HelenMeg wrote:Thanks for drawing attention to this site! Read this page - referring to the NOTW reward money of £21,000 given to the fund and not acknowledged in the website, after certain pages were removed later (but thankfully captured forever!)

http://asaucesaid.blogspot.de/2014_07_01_archive.html

I've clicked on the above link and got this message:

Sorry, but only users granted special access can read topics in this forum.

Can I ask what are the conditions for "special access"?

#87 · by **PeterMac** 26.09.14 12:04

No problem for me
But here it is in full, in case it gets whooshed

A Sauce Said...
A blog about the McCanns, the media, money and the Met.

Tuesday, 8 July 2014

Gone. But not forgotten.
Findmadeleine.com bills itself as ‘The official site to find Madeleine McCann’.
Whether the website achieves its aim before the combined forces of the Metropolitan Police and the Polícia Judiciária remains to be seen.
But it doesn’t seem capable of looking after even itself. Some of its pages have gone missing.
Visitors who click on ‘Updates’ are offered a series of 25 blog entries by Kate and Gerry McCann dating from
23 March 2009 to 11 June 2014.
But until the end of June this year, you could have found another 17 or so entries. Those messages, posted
between 14 January 2010 and Christmas 2012, have simply disappeared from the site.
Why might that be?
It may, of course, be a simple glitch that will soon be resolved. Alternatively, it may have been a deliberate
removal of information that may have proved difficult or embarrassing, in retrospect, to explain.
Like the entry for Monday 2 May 2011.
Unlike in the real world, nothing really disappears from the internet. Sites like gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk and
mccannfiles.com are dedicated to preserving information related to the disappearance of Madeleine.
And, especially for the avoidance of doubt, the Wayback Machine (archive.org.web) is an invaluable tool,
capturing as it does the content of websites at particular points in time.

Here is a snapshot from findmadeleine.com taken by the Wayback Machine on 4 May 2011:
" />

Here, Kate McCann explains what “an incredibly busy year so far” 2011 had been.
She explains how there had been three fundraising events between January and March. She mentions the money raised - though not how much - and thanks everybody who supported these events.
She writes about the launch of her book on 8 May 2011 , which “poignantly and coincidentally happens to be Madeleine’s 8 th birthday”.
She reiterates her gratitude to supporters “for not forgetting”.
But what she forgets to do is mention anything about the News of the World Reward Fund.
Which seems odd, because in the weeks preceding this update, in April 2011, the News of the World had quietly handed over to Madeleine’s Fund some £21,000 that had been donated by readers in 2007 towards a reward for information leading to the safe return of Madeleine.
Why did Kate McCann not take this opportunity to thank those very readers?
Why, along with the News of the World and News International, did she not want anyone to know about the payment?
Why do the McCanns and their fellow directors of Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd continue to refuse to acknowledge accepting this money?
Did those readers’ donations simply disappear, like lost webpages, into payments for lawyers, accountants and
PR men?
Does it look a little greedy, taking £21,000 that should rightly have gone to three children's charities, at precisely the same time the Fund was about to receive another 'donation' of £550,000 from News International for serialisation rights to Mrs McCann's book?
Is that what’s so embarrassing?

Or is it the acknowledgement that cashing in the reward money makes it look like you know your daughter isn’t coming back?