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

#1 · by **sharonl** 12.09.14 20:11

Thursday, September 11, 2014

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

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

#2 · by **PeterMac** 12.09.14 20:18

http://www.algarvenewswatch.blogspot.com.es/

Portugal Newswatch
Reflections on current affairs in Portugal by journalist and author Len Port.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

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

#3 · by Five Star 12.09.14 20:22

A person could buy this book or watch the Richard D Hall (richplanet) DVD .....I prefer the DVD yes

#4 · by **PeterMac** 12.09.14 20:32

Any future book about Madleine which seeks to support the 'abduction' theory
MUST
Surely
give at least one credible scenario to explain
When - between what times - and why no one of the Benny Hill mob rushing around back and forth every ten / fifteen / thirty minutes - AND THEN COMING BACK AGAIN
nor anyone else, did not spot something
Point of entry - we know that the shutters were not broken - The McCanns accept and admit that this was in any event irrelevant - on their own website
the front door was locked - at least from the outside - and the little gate, child gate, patio doors and curtains were all in order (Kate said so, so it must be true.)
and Gerry was standing at the bottom of the stairs for a long time (Gerry says so, so it must be true)
Point of Exit - see above
Method of sedation of three children - see previous threads with detailed examination of this

Without this there is little point in merely stating "she was abducted"

#5 · by Guest 12.09.14 20:50

For some reason I can't help thinking of Dennis Thatcher's great quote -

"Better keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt".

#6 · by Markus 2 12.09.14 20:56

PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED ON SUMMER'S AND SWAN'S FB PAGE!

Authors Summers and Swan reply to critics of their book about Madeleine Safe_i10

And can someone ask them why they are using this tampered image on their FB page

#7 · by roy rovers 12.09.14 21:37

Clay Regazzoni wrote:For some reason I can't help thinking of Dennis Thatcher's great quote -

"Better keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt"

Hi Clay
Take your pick from George Eliot, Mark Twain, Abraham Lincoln, Proverbs .... (not Dennis Thatcher).

#8 · by roy rovers 12.09.14 21:43

Its a back to front book - the conclusion was already there before the project commenced. This is the deal - you work out what dosh you will get for serialisation and library borrowings (plus a few sales if you're lucky) for a pro McCanns book. That's the budget. Within that budget there has to be a hefty profit. What's left is spent on cursory research and dashing something off. It's like ghost writing - just done for a few bucks.

#9 · by **Hobs** 12.09.14 22:14

“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.

Houston we have a problem

Notice the tense used, have been not WERE
They don't tell us they were independant of the mccanns before or whilst the book was being written, notice they say before Looking for Madeleine was published.
This is a big difference and telling.
He speaks in the present tense not the past tense
Right now they may be totally independant but he doesn't tell us they were so when writing the book.
Note also the qualifiers, words which when removed fo not change the meaning of the sentence.
here we see the qualifiers totally, emphasise.

Why do they need to qualify being independant with the addition of totally?

If they were independant of the mccann's it would be a given, the fact they need to qualify their independance makes it weaker,
this would lead me to ask what their definition of independance is and exactly what contact was had between them and the mccanns and 3rd parties acting for or on behalf of the mccanns.

They have a further need to qualify their total independance by the addition of the word emphasise (remember gerry and his and that's an emphatic no comment?)
This not only further weakens their statement it makes it highly sensitive.
He gives a specific time frame in regard to this total independance
He doesn't say it was before or during the writing ofthe book, it comes before the book was published,
What was going on between the book having been written, edited, proof read etc and it being published?
This is called a temporal lacuna,
I would be asking did you have any form of contact with kate and/or gerry mccann, or a 3rd party acting on their behalf?

Their impartiality has been called into question and rightly so given their conclusions which go against all the evidence so far revealed to the public and from statements made by the mccanns . clarence and the tapas 7 as well as family and friends.

#10 · by petunia 12.09.14 22:32

It would seem S&S have been totally used and abused by Kate,Gerry,Mitchell,Gamble.How naive can one be.

#11 · by jeanmonroe 12.09.14 23:49

petunia wrote:It would seem S&S have been totally used and abused by Kate,Gerry,Mitchell,Gamble.How naive can one be.

About as 'naive' as two doctors, that diliberately and consciously, left THREE kids, all under 4 years old, alone, in an unlocked, unsecured apartment, abroad, every night, who were 'tempted' to go to dinner, at a tapas restaurant, out of sight and earshot, naively thinking "what could POSSIBLY go WRONG"?

#12 · by Bishop Brennan 13.09.14 4:10

petunia wrote:It would seem S&S have been totally used and abused by Kate,Gerry,Mitchell,Gamble.How naive can one be.

I'm not sure I'd agree. S&S are authors and the objective of their book is simply to make them some money. They are not altruistic truth-seekers, they write for a living. They saw the publicity that any Maddie story generates and correctly concluded that they would get tons of free publicity for any book they wrote. They are smart people - they know that any book critical of the McCanns will be banned (cf Amaral / Pat Brown) and get zero sales. Why waste months of your valuable time for a book that cannot sell?

As such, they knew the slant the book HAD to take so that it would get high publicity,full backing from the media and be bomb-proof from the lawyers.

S&S have simply applied common business sense to the matter and written a (not very good by all accounts) book with a view to making some dosh.

ETA: The only unknown is whether they were in any way encouraged by 'the controller of the wider agenda' to write the book and to release it in this timeframe. Depends on how deep you feel any cover-up goes, I guess.

#13 · by aiyoyo 13.09.14 9:07

Bishop Brennan wrote:
petunia wrote:It would seem S&S have been totally used and abused by Kate,Gerry,Mitchell,Gamble.How naive can one be.

I'm not sure I'd agree. S&S are authors and the objective of their book is simply to make them some money. They are not altruistic truth-seekers, they write for a living. They saw the publicity that any Maddie story generates and correctly concluded that they would get tons of free publicity for any book they wrote. They are smart people - they know that any book critical of the McCanns will be banned (cf Amaral / Pat Brown) and get zero sales. Why waste months of your valuable time for a book that cannot sell?

As such, they knew the slant the book HAD to take so that it would get high publicity,full backing from the media and be bomb-proof from the lawyers.

S&S have simply applied common business sense to the matter and written a (not very good by all accounts) book with a view to making some dosh.

ETA: The only unknown is whether they were in any way encouraged by 'the controller of the wider agenda' to write the book and to release it in this timeframe. Depends on how deep you feel any cover-up goes, I guess.

@ BB and RR,
I agree. Their objective was to make a quick and easy pile. Given his age and a young family (younger wife and a daughter the same age as Maddie) there would be a need to remain bomb safe from lawsuits when trying to earn some money while he is still able to, to keep his young family in habitual style.

It is a back to front book through and through. They had already made up their mind they believed the Mcs after their meet then they set out to write a book slant that way. In that mindset, their subsequent actions and pro-Mcs third parties they sought to interview were done to fill in the pages to fit a stance they already assumed. They were not objective from start to finish, and not one thing objective was in the book.

@ Clay,the Dennis Tatcher's quote originates from Chinese proverb.

#14 · by Markus 2 13.09.14 9:38

I can't help thinking there is more to it than money, why the two questionable images on the book cover and their face book page. I would think if they are trying to make the Mcanns look innocent then they are all in the s... together jmo.

#15 · by Brian Griffin 13.09.14 11:39

sharonl wrote:

“And – this really got us: ‘How long would you look for me, Mummy?’

That sounds just like something our Kate would say one of her kids had said.

In my opinon.

#16 · by Sceptic 13.09.14 21:14

The one thing we all have to accept and understand - At this moment in time, No publisher will take on or any mainstream book will be released that doesnt toe the abduction line - unless they want to throw money away straight into the mccann coffers via the courtroom.

#17 · by XTC 13.09.14 22:31

Sceptic wrote:The one thing we all have to accept and understand - At this moment in time, No publisher will take on or any mainstream book will be released that doesnt toe the abduction line - unless they want to throw money away straight into the mccann coffers via the courtroom.

Exactly.

You can't pre-ban a book that has not been published.

Mr Amaral's and Pat Brown's books are not banned in the UK or the US ( i.e. in English )

A publisher has not taken up the offer of publishing.

What I am surprised about is that in the US ( the alleged Land of the Free and Free speech ) have
not decided to publish either book.

Carter Ruck can huff and puff all they wish but all it needs is for the writer to stick squarely to the AG's and PJ's
original reports.

Otherwise CR would have to sue the entire Portuguese Judicial system.

It only needs a brave publisher to take the legal eagles on.

The ones who said that they only had the parents word for abduction.

This is why appearing before a judge and proper cross examination has never occurred.

Sticking to the actual legal opinion and not your own opinion would be a perfect factual account.

As Eric Morecambe would say " There's no answer to that!"

I hope that someone has the bottle to do it as the antidote to the latest book.

The sales are irrelevant as someone has said. It's the drip drip of serialisation and I agree totally.

Headlines and sub headlines make the impact not all the text.

As with the Madeleine book the sell is the picture of a young Madeleine not the age progressed one.

In the public mind Madeleine is still nearly four not 11 plus.

It's a travesty of fake assistance as usual.

It will get us no nearer to the truth I'm afraid which is typical.

Emotion sells, not cold harsh facts.

Shame on all the so called journalists.

#18 · by **PeterMac** 13.09.14 23:05

http://www.algarvenewswatch.blogspot.com.es/2014/09/summers-and-swan-interview-part-2.html#comment-form

Portugal Newswatch
Reflections on current affairs in Portugal by journalist and author Len Port.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Summers and Swan interview – part 2
In part two of our interview with Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, the authors explain more about the background to their new book Looking for Madeleine, their thoughts on the police investigations so far, and what may now lie ahead in this extraordinary case.

How did you conduct your research? What was the process you followed?
First and foremost, we spent months doing what we have done on our previous eight books, reading all possible available documentation – in many cases a logistic challenge because of the Portuguese language factor. All of this was sorted and allocated and built into a vast chronology. Chronology, carefully assembled, is the key to investigation – whether by law enforcement or non-fiction authors.
When did you come to the conclusion that Kate and Gerry McCann played no part in covering up their daughter’s disappearance and that claims of this are unfounded?
Were we to have to put a date on this current view of ours, we would say it was at the stage a few months ago when – after all the months of analysing the available evidence and testimony – we were finalizing the manuscript.
Can your book be accurately considered as ‘the definitive account’ of this unsolved case?
Note that our publisher has said that the book is “the most definitive account possible.” Possible at this time. We hope and believe that it is exactly the case at this point, as of September 2014. Events yet to occur may change that and – as and when they do – we would hope to update our work.
Your book has been described as ‘a whitewash’ and ‘propaganda,’ and criticism has been levelled at the amount of ‘spin’ it received in the British media before publication? What is your reaction to this?
It is emphatically not a whitewash, whether or not those making the allegations choose to believe it or not. Should they look at the available evidence and testimony, and in turn how we report it in Looking for Madeleine, they will find such allegations untenable. We know of no articles about us or the book that could be called "spin.” There have been news stories based on the information in the book - that is reporting.
How would you sum up the way in which the investigations have been conducted over the past seven years?
A muddle of events and developments, poorly reported and – because of the lengthy lapse of time after the case was archived – critically interrupted. Hopefully, with both nations’ police forces for some time now engaged in systematic fresh work, lost ground may be retrieved.
How relevant is the Gamble report discussed on Sky TV shortly before publication of the book?
The report written by former Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre head Jim Gamble and his team has not been released. In an interview for our book, Gamble discussed it, we believe, more openly and at greater length than ever before, and this was justifiably newsworthy. The inclusion of this self-critique of British law enforcement’s role in the investigation, from a senior source, was welcome and long overdue. The first Portuguese investigation has been widely criticised, often exaggeratedly and in a way that seemed xenophobic. The new openness from the UK’s Gamble may go some way to redressing the balance. Once it becomes ethically possible, Portuguese law enforcement may perhaps offer similar up-to-date background. Should that occur, we would be glad to report it in a new edition of Looking for Madeleine.
How long do you expect the investigation to continue?
Rather than speak in terms of months or weeks, we hope the investigations by both Portuguese and British law enforcement will be allowed to continue until they have followed up on all the lines of inquiry they regard as necessary. We hope the climate of public opinion in both countries develops positively, in a way that favours true international cooperation. Unbiased, moderate media reporting could do much to make this possible.
Do you think the mystery will ever be solved?
A major breakthrough would be a forensic lead. Any trace, dead or alive, of Madeleine. The police never forget, though, that someone, somewhere, knows – or suspects they have knowledge – of what happened to Madeleine. Someone’s wife, someone’s brother or sister or friend. Someone who noticed something but has until now kept it to themselves. What cold case investigators always hope for is that some hitherto unknown witness or witnesses will come forward with the fragment of information that can break the case. It’s happened in the past, and could yet happen in the case of Madeleine.

#19 · by Guest 13.09.14 23:08

Hobs wrote: “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.

Yes but.. have they been totally independent of the Media Monitoring Unit or BK?

Semanics.

The book doesn't mention the Gaspers.

Let's ponder that.

#20 · by **Tony Bennett** 13.09.14 23:47

PeterMac wrote:http://www.algarvenewswatch.blogspot.com.es/2014/09/summers-and-swan-interview-part-2.html#comment-form
[ quoting Summers & Swan's defence of their book]: A major breakthrough would be a forensic lead. Any trace, dead or alive, of Madeleine.

This is very cunning of Summers & Swan.

Here is a typical dictionary definition of the word 'forensic':

fo·ren·sic
fəˈrenzik,-sik/
adjective
adjective: forensic

of, relating to, or denoting the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of crime.

"forensic evidence"

* of or relating to courts of law.

noun
plural noun: forensics; noun: forensic

scientific tests or techniques used in connection with the detection of crime.

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

Summers & Swan are pretending that there is 'no forensic evidence' in this case.

However, we have eleven alerts to the past presence of a human cadaver and five alerts in the very same places to blood or body fluids by dogs who:

(a) never once have a false alerts before
(b) have a track record of successfully solving crimes by alerting to the past presence of a human corpse in other locations, and
(c) were trained by one of the world's most widely tried, tested and trusted dog handlers, so much in demand that he now works almost exclusively for the F.B.I. in the United States.

The eleven alerts to cadaver and the five to blood & body fluids are indications that there was a body in that flat which bled.

But they are more than that, they amount to evidence, they amount to forensic evidence, and they amount to scientific evidence.

'Scientific' evidence - because the dogs' alerts are based on the science of the power and discriminatory ability of the noses of trained dogs.

'Scientific' evidence - because the track record of these dogs has been scientifically observed, and recorded on video and in documents.

'Scientific' evidence - because there is ample observational, empirical, scientific, forensic evidence that trained dogs can accurately detect a whole range of scents, from corpses, to blood, to drugs, to explosives, to medical conditions to name but a few - as PeterMac has ably demonstrated on this very forum by producing a referenced list of many of these examples (sorry, don't have the link to hand).

So, Summers & Swan are wrong, there is forensic evidence: cadaver scent, blood and body fluids.

And it is good evidence. Very good evidence in this case, because of the high degree of expreience and expertise of the dog handler.

All that Martin Grime ever said - and he was quite right - is that this evidence was insufficient, alone, on which to base any arrest of a suspect, then to charge and prosecute them, unless there was corroboration of the dogs' alerts from other evidence in the case.

Besides, there is other forensic evidence:

1. As I understand it, there is evidence that the only fingerprint on the window of he children's bedroom was that of Dr Kate McCann

2. The forensic evidence that the shutters and window of that room were not jemmied open, or otherwise tampered with, demonstrated that the story put out by the McCanns on the night of 3rd/4th May 2007 to friends in high places, Rupert Murdoch's SkyNews and other media - that an abductor had broken into the flat by forcing open the shutters - was untrue.

3. Forensic evidence can also include the absence of forensic evidence, for example

4. No forensic trace of any abductor in G5A, not on the floor, not on the shutters, not on the window, not on the bed - nowhere...and

5. None of Madeleine's DNA being available anywhere - the McCanns had to go back to Leicester and get some.

Absence of certain forensic evidence can be just as revealing as the presence of forensic evidence.

All of the above (and maybe some here can think of other examples of forensic evidence in the case) are clear examples of forensic evidence.

If they had written anything like an honest book, let alone 'the most definitive account possible', they would have been scrupulously fair in listing that evidence.

But they didn't.

Once again, Summers & Swan can be seen to be guilty of serioulsy misleading their readers

#21 · by **Tony Bennett** 14.09.14 0:03

BlueBag wrote:
Hobs wrote: “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.
Yes but...have they been totally independent of the Media Monitoring Unit or BK?

Or independent of Clarence Mitchell and MI5 for that matter? Despite a polite request, Summers & Swan have so far failed to disclose who else was present when they met with the McCans.

Semantics.

The book doesn't mention the Gaspars. Let's ponder that.

Nor does it mention the alleged visit of Dr David Payne to Apartment G5A at 6.30pm or so on 3 May, about which a total of 20 separate contradictions between Dr Kate McCann's account of that visit and that of Dr David Payne have been found.

Nor does it list many other sets of contradictions and changes of story.

Nor, for example, does it mention McCann Team employees Marcos Aragao Corriea and two top detectives from Metodo 3 - Francisco Marco and Antonio Giminez Raso - each travelling 1,000 miles or so (from Madeira in the Atlantic and Barcelona, Spain, respectively) - to meet at the Arade Dam, Portugal, on 10 December 2007, presumably to plan the highly-publicised searches for Madeleine's bones there for two separate weeks in January and March 2008.

'Blue Bag', if you sat down now to list all the significant (and no doubt deliberate) omissions of significant matters from this bland re-hash of Dr Kate McCann's book, you'd still be at it this time next week

#22 · by Okeydokey 14.09.14 1:21

XTC wrote:
Sceptic wrote:The one thing we all have to accept and understand - At this moment in time, No publisher will take on or any mainstream book will be released that doesnt toe the abduction line - unless they want to throw money away straight into the mccann coffers via the courtroom.
Exactly.

You can't pre-ban a book that has not been published.

Mr Amaral's and Pat Brown's books are not banned in the UK or the US ( i.e. in English )

A publisher has not taken up the offer of publishing.

What I am surprised about is that in the US ( the alleged Land of the Free and Free speech ) have
not decided to publish either book.

Carter Ruck can huff and puff all they wish but all it needs is for the writer to stick squarely to the AG's and PJ's
original reports.

Otherwise CR would have to sue the entire Portuguese Judicial system.

It only needs a brave publisher to take the legal eagles on.

The ones who said that they only had the parents word for abduction.

This is why appearing before a judge and proper cross examination has never occurred.

Sticking to the actual legal opinion and not your own opinion would be a perfect factual account.

As Eric Morecambe would say " There's no answer to that!"

I hope that someone has the bottle to do it as the antidote to the latest book.

The sales are irrelevant as someone has said. It's the drip drip of serialisation and I agree totally.

Headlines and sub headlines make the impact not all the text.

As with the Madeleine book the sell is the picture of a young Madeleine not the age progressed one.

In the public mind Madeleine is still nearly four not 11 plus.

It's a travesty of fake assistance as usual.

It will get us no nearer to the truth I'm afraid which is typical.

Emotion sells, not cold harsh facts.

Shame on all the so called journalists.

I'd like to think you were right...and have wondered why no one has done that yet. But I am not so sure you are right.

I can imagine a judge like Justice Hogg still finding against the defendant in such a case. If necessary they will invent some new legal dogma to prevent publication of the PJ files in the UK.

#23 · by **PeterMac** 14.09.14 8:23

Tony Bennett wrote:
All that Martin Grime ever said - and he was quite right - is that this evidence was insufficient, alone, on which to base any arrest of a suspect, then to charge and prosecute them, unless there was corroboration of the dogs' alerts from other evidence in the case.

I know this is the wrong place to do i, but I want to follow up that point.
It is lost, perhaps deliberately, on many people.

The dog alerts to cadaverine in your house.
But that does not mean that you will immediately be arrested and charged with murder
There must be other evidence to corroborate what the dog is indicating.
But this other evidence does not have to be a body part, or blood,
The other evidence can be that a person has been reported missing, evidence of argument and physical assault between the parties, no one having seen the person for a long time, lying by the principal witness, changes in story, bank acount accessed unlawfully, traces of relevant searches on the internet, alteration and forgery of relevant documents, wills and house purchase contracts for example, and many more individual pieces of evidence, which looked at in isolation do not more than cause an eyebrow to be raised, but when when taken as a whole and put into the form of a compelling and credible narrative and added to the dogs' alerts can lead to only one sensible conclusion.
This is how the sentences of Life have been passed on so many people, where the only evidence of the actual DEATH, was from the dog.

As TB observes "Forensic" means of or pertaining to the Court. It does NOT mean "scientific" or "concrete" though it is used as a convenient shorthand for this.
So a criminal barrister is a "Forensic advocate"
The Study at University is of "Forensic Science" - that branch of scientific research which has ultimately to do with Court proceedings, such as fingerprints, DNA, the study of broken glass, the investigation of photographs and their EXIF metadata, and so on.

Summers and Co. are guilty of sloppy use of language, or perhaps, as I said the other day, very precise use of language giving evidence of sloppy thinking.

The McCanns and their lobby are presenting this as if after the dogs' alerts, the fact of the lack of blood in useable quantities, or of the actual rotting piece of torso, forces the alert to be disregarded.
This is not so. And they know it.

Let us take an analogy they might understand. If a dog alerts to a patient in a clinic by barking at a small mole or skin blemish, the clinician will not immediately amputate the limb.
They will then examine the mark under a microscope, possibly take high definition photos of it ever a period of weeks to see if it is growing, will then take a small sample as a biopsy for histology, and so on and on. Only when everything they have points to its being a tumour will they go in and dig it out, and start radio and chemotherapy.
The dog's alert is not enough to take final action, but it is enough to start a process of looking for more evidence.