Is this deliberately dishonest ?

by **PeterMac** 26.09.14 21:05

I this deliberately dishonest and deliberately trying to mislead . .
Or just dreadful writing and barely literate use of English

p. 284
Chaper 23
Kate McCan had got wind of the fact that there had been previous assaults on little girls the very morning after her daughter's disappearance."
Similar to the old chestnut
I saw a man in the street with a dog wearing no trousers\
The lack of punctuation and the sloppy juxtaposition within the sentence of previous assaults . . the very morning after . . .is capable in the mind of someone who is not examining it in detail of implying that there had been assaults that very morning. Just as the dog was wearing no trousers.

Better surely, and more accurate, to have written
Kate McCann had got wind the very morning after her daughter's disappearance of the fact that there had been previous assaults on little girls."

Sloppy, or a deliberate twisting ? For a professional writer it is inexcusable either way.

by **PeterMac** 26.09.14 21:05

and again

by **PeterMac** 26.09.14 21:05

duplicate, sorry

by Guest 26.09.14 21:10

Something repeating on you Peter?

by **PeterMac** 26.09.14 21:17

"The authors wish to make it 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 McCanns, . . .were at any stage - in May 2007 or subsequently - guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann's disappearance of the repercussions that followed."

Which one supposed makes it CarterRuck proof.
what about
Children and Young Persons Act 1933
1933 CHAPTER 12 23 and 24 Geo 5
1 Cruelty to persons under sixteen.
(1)If any person who has attained the age of sixteen years and has responsibility for any child or young person under that age, wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes him, or causes or procures him to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and any mental derangement), that person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding ten years;

Three children, on SIX consecutive nights, even after the eldest one has specifically complained about being abandoned in that way . . .

what about
Perverting the Course of Justice
English Common Law
"Between 4 May 2007 and 4 May 2007 you with intent to pervert the course of public justice, did a series of acts which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice, in that you provided the police with two statements which were inaccurate." [taken from the charges against Briscoe, see http://ukcriminallawblog.com/tag/perverting-the-course-of-justice/]
Start with front door -v- patio door, Gerry, then curtains wide open -v- tight closed and whoshing, Kate, and go on from there.

what about
Oh what's the point !

by **PeterMac** 26.09.14 21:28

p. 284
"Relevant material, Redwood thought, might be lying forgotten 'in police exhibit stores somewhere in the Algarve'.
If such evidence does exist, could be retrieved, and if - the big 'if' - it led to identification of an individual, the investigation might take a great leap forward. "

What then if the relevant material lies, not in an Exhibit store, but in Dr Amaral's personal files ?
What if such material already lies in the Prosecution Authorities' computers, waiting only for the single piece of necessary corroboration ?
What if the material already lies in any of the books the McCanns have tried so hard to ban, and at such great cost.
What it the material lies within their own book, and by publishing it they have drawn attention to a juxtaposition and corroboration no one had spotted, but now do.
What if the person identified turned out to be someone Winters and Goose had already tried to exculpate ?
Then they would be absolutely correct.
The investigation could take a great leap forward.

by plebgate 26.09.14 21:45

I feel PeterM is hinting at something, oh can't wait to know what he has seen ref. his post earlier in the week. How much longer do we have to wait PeterM?

by Guest 26.09.14 21:51

PeterMac wrote:"The authors wish to make it 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 McCanns, . . .were at any stage - in May 2007 or subsequently - guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann's disappearance of the repercussions that followed."

Which one supposed makes it CarterRuck proof.
what about
Children and Young Persons Act 1933
1933 CHAPTER 12 23 and 24 Geo 5
1 Cruelty to persons under sixteen.
(1)If any person who has attained the age of sixteen years and has responsibility for any child or young person under that age, wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes him, or causes or procures him to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and any mental derangement), that person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding ten years;

Three children, on SIX consecutive nights, even after the eldest one has specifically complained about being abandoned in that way . . .

what about
Perverting the Course of Justice
English Common Law
"Between 4 May 2007 and 4 May 2007 you with intent to pervert the course of public justice, did a series of acts which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice, in that you provided the police with two statements which were inaccurate." [taken from the charges against Briscoe, see http://ukcriminallawblog.com/tag/perverting-the-course-of-justice/]
Start with front door -v- patio door, Gerry, then curtains wide open -v- tight closed and whoshing, Kate, and go on from there.

what about
Oh what's the point !

Along with Plebgate I think you are leading us to something.

by Guest 26.09.14 21:53

plebgate wrote:I feel PeterM is hinting at something, oh can't wait to know what he has seen ref. his post earlier in the week. How much longer do we have to wait PeterM?

Plebs, would you kindly c/p PeterM's post you've mentioned?

by plebgate 26.09.14 21:55

Ladyinred wrote:
plebgate wrote:I feel PeterM is hinting at something, oh can't wait to know what he has seen ref. his post earlier in the week. How much longer do we have to wait PeterM?

Plebs, would you kindly c/p PeterM's post you've mentioned?

I would LIR if I knew how to find it. smilie

Maybe someone else will do it as I can't remember the exact wording of the post, but something PeterM has seen and will be revealed, but didn't say when.

by Guest 26.09.14 22:09

PeterMac wrote:
Or as we know - NOT very strange.

It must rank alongside the inability of the McCanns to write TB off as a nutter, and to refuse to dignify his pamphlet with a comment.
It must rank alongsire the inability of the Mccanns to write Dr Amaral off as merely incompetent and wrong.
But they didn't and can't
Because, as with Summers-and-rex-Swann, people are saying things which hit home, and are too uncomfortable for them all.

Now watch and wait. Something else is being prepared by someone else, and I have been allowed a sneak pre-view.

Was it this from the 'half price' thread?

I note as well that PeterMac finds the thought of the mysterious video due to be released by a new Twitter user on October 12 to be 'tantalising'...

PeterMac....???

by plebgate 26.09.14 22:13

Thank you Dee Coy, that's it.

I think, having read it again, it's the 12th October vid.

by Guest 26.09.14 22:14

Thank you.

by **PeterMac** 30.09.14 14:31

It seems the authors have been harsher on their 'work" then we have.
And the S&S video looks as it it may turn out to be disappointing, and just a re-hash of what we already know, made by someone who didn't.

Ah well, back to patient analysis !

by Dont Make Me Laff 30.09.14 18:46

PeterMac wrote:It seems the authors have been harsher on their 'work" then we have.
And the S&S video looks as it it may turn out to be disappointing, and just a re-hash of what we already know, made by someone who didn't.

Ah well, back to patient analysis !

sorry for late response.
Many posts today re various subjects.
I agree that S&S (or as you call them W&G sooo funny PM - my view of them is Turkey and Chicken) have shot themselves in the foot and scored a massive own goal

Am I correct that you were going to start a NEW thread? if so APOLOGIES FOR MISSING IT....

by Brian Griffin 30.09.14 22:11

'Turkey'? Is that an old-man flabby neck joke?

Just wondered.

by aiyoyo 01.10.14 11:40

Mrs Holmes wrote:Could it be that the authors have left themselves wiggle room for future developments and their next version?

I believe they've already hinted at an updated edition to be published should new facts come to light.

Like what? Write a post-mortem book of the case after it is solved, prosecution had, and closed?

Another definitive account?

They would have to redeem themselves from this dented reputation first before they can hope to attract readership.

Winters is well past his prime. It would be left to Goose and we know the quality (lack of) of the end product to expect. Besides, come post mortem time competition will be stiff. Many more will be writing book about the McCanns. I suspect some may already have started on the manuscripts waiting for it to go to print.

by **PeterMac** 01.10.14 13:06

aiyoyo wrote:
Mrs Holmes wrote:Could it be that the authors have left themselves wiggle room for future developments and their next version?
I believe they've already hinted at an updated edition to be published should new facts come to light.
Like what? Write a post-mortem book of the case after it is solved, prosecution had, and closed?
Another definitive account?

fairly easy really, given the format of the book.

They simply take each of the plagiarised or copied and pasted sentences and instead of "she recalled later" or "she was to say"
they replace with "She LIED"

Then it would be definitive !

by The....truth 01.10.14 13:28

Precisely !!

It is all cobblers, its obvious, in my opinion.

Once you take the view, as I do, based on the facts before me, that the whole story is just that, then it all changes. In my view there was no abduction, just an staging, led by a Director who is referred to in T9 statement somewhere. It all happened several days before, whatever it was.

This forum would therefore be better served IMHO by focussing patient analysis on the expats who were involved, the cars, the trip to Sagres, the phone logs. The trips around the barn. The coincidences.

The was he or was he not discussion around Smithman is time consuming and interesting but, who put Smithman in the frame so to speak. Why, it was Redwood of course and is he and Grange are about to nail UK based perps ? I don't think so.

To return, the Winters and Goose twaddle was designed to coincide with closure of the damages trial IMO. Grange final visit was also lined up, IMO for the same time. UK sheeple then get serialized W&G with their cornflakes, it was Mummyman wot did it, everybody happy. Dissenters put on third and final warning then closed down, or banged up. Tony's hate preaching over intelligent design should be enough to send him down I would have though !! Don't grow a beard Tony whatever you do !

by Brian Griffin 01.10.14 17:42

aiyoyo wrote:Another definitive account?

You can only cry 'Wolf!' so often though.

I think even George Lucas realised he was pushing it with release after release of 'Limited Edition' Star Wars trilogy sets - the new version, the undoctored version without all the silly added slapstick (obviously not the tag-line he went for - the edition with extra footage - the first director's cut - the second director's cut - the definitive director's cut - the director's cut before the other director's cuts...well, I'm exaggerating slightly but you know what I mean! People start to feel like suckers!

In my opinion.

by **Hobs** 01.10.14 21:50

it is most disconcerting to see the nickname Goose popping up in relation to the badly written book.

The simple reason being that Goose is one of my alter egos online and in real life.

Sad to say i am know either as Bingo, Hobs (hobnob) or Goose by pretty much everyone who knows me or has met me both here in the UK and around the world in real life and online

It is sad that when i hear my real name used i wonder what i have done wrong since that is the only time i ever really hear it ( except my niece nephew and uncle)

For those interested Goose derived from goosegog which was/is my playname in chat ( it is cornish name for a gooseberry but it got shortened down so often i became goose ( i have a snazzy pair of sneakers on my goose av or, in this case, fluffy bunny slippers)
I have a wide variety of avatars of me wearing delightful outfits, doing sports and generally looking awesome and, in one case, with bed feathers and very fluffy

For those interested or not i have 2 webpages done under my goose persona

MY Paintings page done via my PC

MY VPchat divorce page for all those VP marriages that go bosoms up often after only one day big grin

Have we been too harsh on the book ? - Page 2 Pinksl10

by Brian Griffin 02.10.14 12:47

Think of it as water of a duck's back.

OK, who's for the next avian pun then?

by HelenMeg 02.10.14 12:55

Thanks Hobs - always good to learn a little bit more about fellow members!

by Guest 02.10.14 18:53

Brian Griffin wrote:Think of it as water of a duck's back.

OK, who's for the next avian pun then?

What's sauce for the goose...

by Doug D 03.10.14 10:09

Wow, a veritable surge of sales yesterday, what with all the publicity - 7 on Amazon! That makes 52.

http://www.novelrank.com/title/looking-for-madeleine-kindle-edition

by Okeydokey 08.10.14 1:10

Doug D wrote:Wow, a veritable surge of sales yesterday, what with all the publicity - 7 on Amazon! That makes 52.

http://www.novelrank.com/title/looking-for-madeleine-kindle-edition

Surely we haven't been harsh enough. Summers and Swan - or Winters and Goose if you prefer - have been in the forefront of demonising so-called "haters"... no doubt they would have been the first to condemn Brenda Leyland for her brave stance, but have we heard even one drop of regret from them regarding Brenda's sad fate? Not that I am aware of.