Re: Summers and Swan reply to criticisms of their book - and explain the David Payne/Kate McCann 6.30pm visit contradictions

by MayMuse Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:29 pm

Robittybob1 wrote:
MayMuse wrote:
Robittybob1 wrote:
worriedmum wrote:robbitybob, you are priceless!

''Do you cook the dinner or go the laundry without your kids? It doesn't sound that bad if it was just a quick shower after her run''

Yes of course I cook the dinner-but the children would be next to me, in the same room or in sight and earshot-ditto the laundry. The point is, the shower was a choice. Three tots , tired, cranky,in an unfamiliar apartment(they were in creches all day) and you choose to go in the smallest and by definition most private room. You can't hear because of the shower, you can't see... But hey, maybe Madeleine was in charge - after all , she was at bedtime when they went out...
One way or the other it was not the crime. If someone did sneak in and play with the kids (twizzing them) while she was showering, that too was a possibility.
It is impossible to tell exactly what happened.
What wasn't the crime?
So we have "someone" sneaking in whilst Kate was having a shower or a bath? Twizzing the "kids" around and one "accidentally" died? They then did what?
Remove the "evidence" whilst Kate was in the apartment?
So a "kiddie twizzer burglar" did it?
Kate didn't hear or see a thing?
No screams, shouts, and her clothes just magically produced cadaver odour all by themselves?
Give me strength!
"What wasn't the crime?" Having a shower and later a bath.
So we have "someone" sneaking in whilst Kate was having a shower or a bath? Twizzing the "kids" around and one "accidentally" died? They then did what?" Accidently bumped her head and her nose bled, gave her some medicine, and later Kate put her to bed.

Kate didn't hear or see a thing?" She was in the shower.

No screams, shouts, and her clothes just magically produced cadaver odour all by themselves?" This cadaver odour was discovered some weeks later.

And I suppose Madeleine wiped her own bloody nose, didn't tell her Mum anything about the "twizzing". Just calmly went to sleep after "story time" after saying she had the best day ever?
Of course she didn't because she was "dead" which is how you get cadaver odour transfer which means Kate was in contact with a "cadaver".
IMO
Sorry but are you for real with this?
Incidentally who do you think did the "fun twizzing"?

by Robittybob1 Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:35 pm

MayMuse wrote:

And I suppose Madeleine wiped her own bloody nose, didn't tell her Mum anything about the "twizzing". Just calmly went to sleep after "story time" after saying she had the best day ever?
Of course she didn't because she was "dead" which is how you get cadaver odour transfer which means Kate was in contact with a "cadaver".
IMO
Sorry but are you for real with this?
Incidentally who do you think did the "fun twizzing"?

So how do you think Kate's clothing got contaminated? It takes hours before it is detectable. Whatever I say you disagree but offer no proof or sensible argument.
I know of someone who said they had twizzed her.

by MayMuse Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:44 pm

Robittybob1 wrote:
MayMuse wrote:

And I suppose Madeleine wiped her own bloody nose, didn't tell her Mum anything about the "twizzing". Just calmly went to sleep after "story time" after saying she had the best day ever?
Of course she didn't because she was "dead" which is how you get cadaver odour transfer which means Kate was in contact with a "cadaver".
IMO
Sorry but are you for real with this?
Incidentally who do you think did the "fun twizzing"?
So how do you think Kate's clothing got contaminated? It takes hours before it is detectable. Whatever I say you disagree but offer no proof or sensible argument.
I know of someone who said they had twizzed her.

No, read your posts. You said that Kate was "out of the loop", "was in the shower/bath" "didn't hear" yet after the "bump on head from twizzing" she put her to bed.
What are you suggesting as nothing you have said makes any sense, who was in the apartment doing the "twizzing"? Without Kate's knowledge?

It is you who are trying to provoke a "disagreement"
What you have written is contradictory even by this last statement you had made.

You know someone who "twizzed" Madeleine?
Proof please.

by Robittybob1 Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:52 pm

MayMuse wrote:
Robittybob1 wrote:
MayMuse wrote:

And I suppose Madeleine wiped her own bloody nose, didn't tell her Mum anything about the "twizzing". Just calmly went to sleep after "story time" after saying she had the best day ever?
Of course she didn't because she was "dead" which is how you get cadaver odour transfer which means Kate was in contact with a "cadaver".
IMO
Sorry but are you for real with this?
Incidentally who do you think did the "fun twizzing"?
So how do you think Kate's clothing got contaminated? It takes hours before it is detectable. Whatever I say you disagree but offer no proof or sensible argument.
I know of someone who said they had twizzed her.
No, read your posts. You said that Kate was "out of the loop", "was in the shower/bath" "didn't hear" yet after the "bump on head from twizzing" she put her to bed.
What are you suggesting as nothing you have said makes any sense, who was in the apartment doing the "twizzing"? Without Kate's knowledge?

It is you who are trying to provoke a "disagreement"
What you have written is contradictory even by this last statement you had made.

You know someone who "twizzed" Madeleine?
Proof please.

Kate said DP just stayed for 30 seconds, but DP says he was there for 30 minutes. So for 29.5 minutes he could have been there without her knowledge.
DP says he twizzed Madeleine at sometime during the holiday.

by MayMuse Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:57 pm

Robittybob1 wrote:
MayMuse wrote:
Robittybob1 wrote:
MayMuse wrote:

And I suppose Madeleine wiped her own bloody nose, didn't tell her Mum anything about the "twizzing". Just calmly went to sleep after "story time" after saying she had the best day ever?
Of course she didn't because she was "dead" which is how you get cadaver odour transfer which means Kate was in contact with a "cadaver".
IMO
Sorry but are you for real with this?
Incidentally who do you think did the "fun twizzing"?
So how do you think Kate's clothing got contaminated? It takes hours before it is detectable. Whatever I say you disagree but offer no proof or sensible argument.
I know of someone who said they had twizzed her.
No, read your posts. You said that Kate was "out of the loop", "was in the shower/bath" "didn't hear" yet after the "bump on head from twizzing" she put her to bed.
What are you suggesting as nothing you have said makes any sense, who was in the apartment doing the "twizzing"? Without Kate's knowledge?

It is you who are trying to provoke a "disagreement"
What you have written is contradictory even by this last statement you had made.

You know someone who "twizzed" Madeleine?
Proof please.
Kate said DP just stayed for 30 seconds, but DP says he was there for 30 minutes. So for 29.5 minutes he could have been there without her knowledge.
DP says he twizzed Madeleine at sometime during the holiday.

Where/ what was Kate doing whilst DP & Madeleine were "twizzing"?

by worriedmum Tue Jun 28, 2016 5:30 pm

Oh for goodness' SAKE robbitybob, why are you trying to shoehorn different stuff together?
Right- 'twizzing'- this is probably David Payne's version of what we call 'twizzling'- holding a child under the arms and spinning around with them. I don't think any adult would spin a child around by its feet as you suggested in a confined space with furniture everywhere. And the other children clamouring to be picked up too..just no! And if there had been an accident, there would have been blood -and Keela would have alerted....

by MayMuse Tue Jun 28, 2016 5:32 pm

worriedmum wrote:Oh for goodness' SAKE robbitybob, why are you trying to shoehorn different stuff together?
Right- 'twizzing'- this is probably David Payne's version of what we call 'twizzling'- holding a child under the arms and spinning around with them. I don't think any adult would spin a child around by its feet as you suggested in a confined space with furniture everywhere. And the other children clamouring to be picked up too..just no! And if there had been an accident, there would have been blood -and Keela would have alerted....

Keela did alert to blood in the apartment, under the tiles behind the sofa along with Eddie in the same area for cadaver odour? It is in the files.

by worriedmum Tue Jun 28, 2016 5:49 pm

MayMuse, yes I know about the blood alert. I personally do not think the confined space behind the sofa would be big enough to 'twizz' a three year old in.. I didn't express it very well, what I meant to say was , Keela would have found MORE blood..and probably ON furniture...

by Robittybob1 Tue Jun 28, 2016 7:55 pm

worriedmum wrote:Oh for goodness' SAKE robbitybob, why are you trying to shoehorn different stuff together?
Right- 'twizzing'- this is probably David Payne's version of what we call 'twizzling'- holding a child under the arms and spinning around with them. I don't think any adult would spin a child around by its feet as you suggested in a confined space with furniture everywhere. And the other children clamouring to be picked up too..just no! And if there had been an accident, there would have been blood -and Keela would have alerted....

There was blood around the sofa and on the floor. OK maybe not by her ankles then, for that would be silly.

by Robittybob1 Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:01 pm

worriedmum wrote:MayMuse, yes I know about the blood alert. I personally do not think the confined space behind the sofa would be big enough to 'twizz' a three year old in.. I didn't express it very well, what I meant to say was , Keela would have found MORE blood..and probably ON furniture...

You can't be sure of that and besides the perpetrator had some time to tidy up. They only check the kids every half hour. But if the accident starts with Madeleine bumping her head while Kate is in the shower, but dies of a brain bled 30 plus minutes later, while asleep, there is even more time and help to clean up.

by MayMuse Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:05 pm

Robittybob1 wrote:
worriedmum wrote:MayMuse, yes I know about the blood alert. I personally do not think the confined space behind the sofa would be big enough to 'twizz' a three year old in.. I didn't express it very well, what I meant to say was , Keela would have found MORE blood..and probably ON furniture...
You can't be sure of that and besides the perpetrator had some time to tidy up. They only check the kids every half hour. But if the accident starts with Madeleine bumping her head while Kate is in the shower, but dies of a brain bled 30 plus minutes later, while asleep, there is even more time and help to clean up.

Which "perpetrator" is that ?
Where was this "perpetrator"?
Again I repeat myself, for cadaver odour to be on Kate's clothes she had to have been with Madeleine when she was deceased.
IMO

by worriedmum Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:28 pm

Robbitybob, are you trying to wind us all up?

by Robittybob1 Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:37 pm

MayMuse wrote:

Which "perpetrator" is that ?
Where was this "perpetrator"?
Again I repeat myself, for cadaver odour to be on Kate's clothes she had to have been with Madeleine when she was deceased.
IMO

I can't name people here.
Not only that but the clothing must not have been washed in the two - three weeks until the sniffer dogs go through the apartments.
Wash the clothes and the smell of death and blood will be removed, so the items must have been clothes she never wore while on holiday.

by Robittybob1 Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:38 pm

worriedmum wrote:Robbitybob, are you trying to wind us all up?

Of course not.

by MayMuse Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:46 pm

Robittybob1 wrote:
worriedmum wrote:Robbitybob, are you trying to wind us all up?
Of course not.

Well you are making a good job of it.
Please read the files as you are trying to "blow clear" those who are suspected of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance/death.
IMO

by MayMuse Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:49 pm

Robittybob1 wrote:
MayMuse wrote:

Which "perpetrator" is that ?
Where was this "perpetrator"?
Again I repeat myself, for cadaver odour to be on Kate's clothes she had to have been with Madeleine when she was deceased.
IMO
I can't name people here.
Not only that but the clothing must not have been washed in the two - three weeks until the sniffer dogs go through the apartments.
Wash the clothes and the smell of death and blood will be removed, so the items must have been clothes she never wore while on holiday.

Oh goodness! tease

Robbittybob1, having made 46 posts so far today, has been banned for reasons that should need no explanation. We would wish to record our regret that there are still sick folk like him/her about who think it's somehow funny or clever to joke around over a 3-year-old British girl who was reported missing with no satisfactory explanation, on a forum that has done more than many others to discover what really happened to her - Moderators

by sandancer Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:57 pm

So you can't name people here !!!!!

The dogs were brought in not two or three weeks later but at the beginning of August !

Washing the clothes would not get rid of cadaver scent or blood scent . Pictures available of Kate wearing those pants between the "disappearance " and the dogs .

Methinks we are being "twizzed " here splat

by worriedmum Tue Jun 28, 2016 9:58 pm

And there I was beginning to think we had one of the Tapas 9 amongst us...

by sandancer Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:42 pm

worriedmum wrote:And there I was beginning to think we had one of the Tapas 9 amongst us...

Well he/she did spout as much claptrap as one of the Tapas 9 but no err, emm you know , tut , you know , umm sort of , you know er erm I err can't you know remember err umm . flag

Ok I give up now I need a drink coffee

by Guest Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:18 am

Summers and Swan... remember them.

I have a question.

Did they ever say that the McCanns had been cleared by the Portuguese authorities?

by Mirage Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:39 am

BlueBag wrote:Summers and Swan... remember them.

I have a question.

Did they ever say that the McCanns had been cleared by the Portuguese authorities?

Nah. No need. They'd put all the anomalies, contradictions and flat out lies under a microscope themselves and found everything above board with the McCann story. They even found the man they thought responsible ... a guy with huge unravelling bandages around his feet who crept into apartments late at night.

Come to think of it, he probably used those to lower himself from the open window, that wasn't.

How will history view this utter madness, I wonder.

by Liz Eagles Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:48 am

Summers and Swan were granted an audience with a senior officer of the Metropolitan Police.

Jim Gamble was supporting their book and also threw into the public domain that it was a bit of a cock-up Blighty-side because every agency was uncoordinated and too eager to help.

Gawd help us all! but most of all God help find justice for Madeleine McCann because there are so many liars around her.

by Guest Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:19 pm

I suspect S&S have also been highly careful with their words because I can't find anything where they say the Portuguese authorities said they were cleared.

by **Verdi** Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:34 pm

Summers and Swan reply to critics of their Madeleine book (Part I)

Created: 13 September 2014

Summers and Swan reply to criticisms of their book - and explain the David Payne/Kate McCann 6.30pm visit contradictions - Page 3 Madeleine9

The best-selling authors Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan have responded to criticisms that their new book Looking for Madeleine, published on September 11, 2014 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 do not accept 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 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.”

* Anthony Summers, formally a deputy editor of the BBC's Panorama, is the author of eight investigative books and the only two-time winner of the Crime Writers' Association's top award for non-fiction. Robbyn Swan, his co-author and wife, has partnered Summers on three previous biographies and investigations. Their book The Eleventh Day, on the 9/11 attacks, was a Finalist for the 2012 Pulitzer Prize.