Summers & Swan Ch 25 + 26

Chapter 25 mentions the poor reviews of Summers & Swan book...

Looking for Madeleine

Chapter 25.

The months that followed brought new headlines. Scotland Yard announced ' operational activity on the ground in Portugal', digging in and around Praia da Luz. Though the police did not say as much, this was evidently a search for possible human remains. Nothing of relevance was found. In a new development weeks later, a number of witnesses were questioned. To comply with national law, Portuguese detectives posed the questions with British officers sitting in as observers.

Though press reports had suggested otherwise, Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley emphasised that the new work 'should not be seen as a sign that the investigation is nearing a conclusion'. It was, he said, 'part of the routine slog'. Operation Grange chief Andy Redwood had earlier noted that his team had worked through more than 2000 'actions', or tasks- with moreover than that number still to be done.

Autumn 2014 brought headlines of a very different sort, news that coincided with publication of the first edition of this book. It shone harsh light on the machinations of some McCann 'haters', people who had for years used the web to pump out vicious bile. As reported in earlier chapters, the web has harboured not only the moderate observers and enthusiastic supporters of Kate and Gerry McCann , but also many out-and-out foes.

Such individuals have poured out their poison on platforms like Facebook and Twitter, the rise and rise of which have coincided with the years since Madeleine's disappearance. Constantly evolving, the explosion of social media has enabled users to connect with like-minded individuals instantaneously, often anonymously- and outpaced law enforcements ability to police it. It was a raw example of this phenomenon of our time, in the context of the Madeleine case, that attracted attention in late 2014.

To many of the online 'antis', it has seemed not to matter that Gerry and Kate McCann are the distressed parents of a missing child, a couple not known to have committed any wrongdoing. Their friends and acquaintances, including those who accompanied them on the ill-fated holiday in 2007, Gerry's sister Philomena- CEOP's former chief Jim Gamble- have also suffered abuse. Publication of this book made the author's targets too.

In September 2014, the day before Looking for Madeleine went on sale, a colleague let us know that members of anti- McCann Facebook groups were already labelling the book pro- McCann 'propoganda' and urging a 'fightback' . On Twitter two female anti- McCann zealots , one using the username @sweepyface- later to be identified as Brenda Leyland- the other using @portugalonline, an American maned Isabelle McFadden, discussed the notion of flooding Amazon with bad reviews. 'We need a concentrated effort on Amazon,' Leyland tweeted, 'it is really affective.'

Customer reviews on Amazon's website, which rate books by allocating stars, can have a powerful effect. Potential buyers are encouraged to say sheet a customer review of a book was helpful- or not. The more people mark a review as helpful, the more potentially that review is displayed. 'The effect of a bad review,' author Robert Groese has explained, goes far beyond the impact it gas on the author's ego.......the prominence of a book on Amazon.com is dictated by two factors: how well the book has sold and how positive the reviews are. More highly rated books are displayed more prominently, which leads to more sales.'

Brenda Leyland's and Isabelle McFadden's negative reviews, which both gave Looking for Madeleine just one star- the lowest rating- appeared rapidly on the book's Amazon sales page. Leyland also posted negative comments on some of the good reviews that had begun to appear. McFadden, who by her own admission did not have the book, based her 'review' on fifty pages she said had been emailed to her. 'I urge anyone in a position to do so,' Leyland tweeted, ' to comment on Amazon in response to the S&S ( Summers and Swann) book.......the star ratings are going down.

Within forty-eight hours, more than a dozen further one- star reviews would pop up on the page. One that appeared was purportedly posted by Jim Gamble - the real Gamble liked the book and had already tweeted positively about it. While such manipulation of the Amazon reviews may not be illegal , it clearly distorts the very purpose of reviewing. Our publisher accordingly raised the issue with Amazon. We for our part contacted the Soceity of Authors , which advised us to encourage- as far as is appropriate- the positive reviews.....' We suggested to several associates of our own that in the light of the Internet attacks- and when they had read the book- they might wish to post authentic reviews on Amazon.


Chaper 26 attempts to dis/dismiss/discredit the dogs and blood in 5A...

Chapter 26

By early 2015, as we prepared this new edition of Loking for Madeleine, what was once a constant stream of news reports had slowed to an occasional trickle. There were rumours that the British police investigation might soon end. People supposedly in the know were saying the case has dragged on too long- almost four years- and become too expensive. The cost of the probe, funded by the Home Office, was £10 million and rising. Working with the Portuguese authorities, always frustrating, supposedly remained nigh on impossible. Political backing, it was said, was ebbing.

Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, who had headed Operation Grange since its inception, had recently retired and gad been replaced by an officer of similar rank named Nicola Wall . Some saw Redwood's departure as 'sending a message' that the case would soon be wound down. More speculation followed when, months later, a Metropolitan Police union spokesman talked of 'resentment' about the diversion of scarce personnel and funds to a case outside the UK.

The authors' conversations with sources over several months , however, suggest a different reality. A senior source told the authors it was 'business as usual. We're just working through the jobs, one by one.. Nicola Wall is an experienced veteran of homicide cases who gas brought a fresh eye to the case. We report to the Home Office every quarter- that's routine- but there's no money problem. And no sense that there's a political wind blowing against continuing the investigation, no hint that we might be closed down'

In one significant are, moreover, there has been a development. While the Mer has earlier said it was studying eighteen incidents in which an intruder had broken into properties housing British families between 2002 and 2010- well after Madeleine's disappearance- the figure had now risen. Police were now analysing as many as twenty-eight over a period starting as early as 2002. 'The offences are not all the same,' a source said. 'Some involve not children but teenagers or young women......but there are similarities. We're seeing a consistent theme.
'Perhaps there is a burglar, a thief, who's also got a weakness for this sort of thing. We don't know. We're not saying all these offences are definitely linked, but there's potential here. It's not the only line of enquiry we're following, not at all, but we're looking at it broad.y- a lengthy job. If we dig down into those incidents and find out who is responsible, if we find that a single person is responsible for a number, if not all, of the events..... Who knows, that same person may have been responsible for Madeleine McCann's disappearance.'

When it first emerged that police were focusing on intrusions into homes, Chief Inspector Redwood had referred wistfully to what his team really yearned for. If forensic evidence could be found that might identify the man or men behind the intrusions, that above all could lead to a breakthrough. Maybe, just maybe, a telltale fingerprint or DNA evidence was lying forgotten in an exhibit store in the Algarve.

Evidence. In eight years- across the whole case, not just in the matter of the intrusions- there has been no hard, usable evidence. That is perhaps the most bedevilling aspect of the Madeleine McCann mystery. From time to time it seemed there might be some. As reported in earlier chapters , the initial Portuguese police team found - aside from prints and hair strands of those known to gave legitimate access to the McCanns' rented apartment- a number of prints that were at the time judged to be of no evidential value, as well as hairs of unknown origin.

Weeks later, of course, sniffer dogs used in the apartment- and around the car Madeleine's parents had rented almost a month after their daughter's disappearance- had seemed to pick up the smell of human blood. One of them, trained to search for dead bodies, had reacted positively. This had lead to much excitement, lurid headlines and a nightmare of uniformed finger pointing at Gerry and Kate McCann that lingers to this day.

In this book, we have laid out in detail the reasons for dismissing the dog 'discoveries' as having been of no consequence. Today, we can hammer the point home by reporting the views of two leading forensic scientists. One is Dr Maureen Smyth, who was the Director of DNA with the Republic of Ireland's forensic science service until her retirement in 2014. The second, British, scientist we consulted is of similar prominence but asked for anonymity because he is engaged in another ongoing, high profile investigation. Between them, the two scientists have more than sixty years experience in their field.

Having perused the forensic files released by the Portuguese police, both experts agreed that this books reporting of the forensic aspects of the case is accurate, and made several additional points. The first deals with samples removed from the wall and floor near the sofa in Apartment 5A, at pints where the sniffer dos 'alerted'. Standard practice- the testing of such samples for blood at the scene, prior to DNA testing in the laboratory- was not followed in this case. It has therefore not been scientifically established that the samples sent to the laboratory were in fact blood.

The two scientists state, moreover, that - contrary to what some have suggested- the location of the samples taken from the wall and floor does not indicate that Madeleine, or anyone else, fell or was assaulted there. There is no typical 'smear pattern', no 'trail' of marks consistent with the scenario of someone being attacked, or bleeding as the result of a fall. Photographs of areas of the apartment's living-room wall that accompany the relevant reports, showing what appear to be smear marks, are consistent with what one might find in any average household. They do not support the notion that anyone cleaned the wall in an attempt to obliterate evidence.

The forensic reports, as released, Dr Smyth said in summary, 'amount to a whole lot of nothing'.

That said, leaks from the ongoing investigation might suggest the police are now making progress on the forensic front. One report said British detectives had asked their Portuguese counterparts not only for strands of hair that were found in Apartment 5A, but for curtains that once hung there. Further laboratory analysis might held fresh information. Has there been such progress? On this, it may be significant that, when repeatedly questioned, our Metropolitan Police sources proved tight-lipped.

A senior source remains optimistic. ' I am upbeat,' the source sai. 'With effort and time and teamwork, this case is solvable. There are simply many angles and many people whom we should interview. We must just work through them one by one, until hopefully- in the end- we identify one or more perpetrators guilty in Madeleine's disappearance.

'Every case is solvable, and there's no reason to think this one don't be solved.'



Two Johnny come lately McCann supporters trying to prove 2+2 = 0.

We all know how well Eddie & Keela did.

Incredible.

I think there is no doubt who is behind this book.

Theyve tried to diss Keela the blood dog - but notice they have not supplied any explanation regarding Eddie the cadaver dog

Thanks for posting these two very revealing chapters, @ whatsupdoc.

Boy, the resentment, hatred and bile towards the internet for undermining sales of their book of propaganda screams out from every line of Chapter 25. 

So, according to Chapter 26, two top British forensic scientists are brought in to claim that Martin Grime's report was a load of rubbish:

QUOTE 
 
Weeks later, of course, sniffer dogs used in the apartment - and around the car Madeleine's parents had rented almost a month after their daughter's disappearance - had seemed to pick up the smell of human blood. One of them, trained to search for dead bodies, had reacted positively. This had lad to much excitement, lurid headlines and a nightmare of uninformed finger pointing at Gerry and Kate McCann that lingers to this day.

In this book, we have laid out in detail the reasons for dismissing the dog 'discoveries' as having been of no consequence. Today, we can hammer the point home by reporting the views of two leading forensic scientists. One is Dr Maureen Smyth, who was the Director of DNA with the Republic of Ireland's forensic science service until her retirement in 2014. The second, British, scientist we consulted is of similar prominence but asked for anonymity because he is engaged in another ongoing, high profile investigation. Between them, the two scientists have more than sixty years experience in their field.

Having perused the forensic files released by the Portuguese police, both experts agreed that this book's reporting of the forensic aspects of the case is accurate, and made several additional points. The first deals with samples removed from the wall and floor near the sofa in Apartment 5A, at points where the sniffer dogs 'alerted'. Standard practice - the testing of such samples for blood at the scene, prior to DNA testing in the laboratory - was not followed in this case. It has therefore not been scientifically established that the samples sent to the laboratory were in fact blood.

The two scientists state, moreover, that - contrary to what some have suggested - the location of the samples taken from the wall and floor does not indicate that Madeleine, or anyone else, fell or was assaulted there. There is no typical 'smear pattern', no 'trail' of marks consistent with the scenario of someone being attacked, or bleeding as the result of a fall. Photographs of areas of the apartment's living-room wall that accompany the relevant reports, showing what appear to be smear marks, are consistent with what one might find in any average household. They do not support the notion that anyone cleaned the wall in an attempt to obliterate evidence.

The forensic reports, as released, Dr Smyth said in summary, 'amount to a whole lot of nothing'.UNQUOTE

I think we can be sure that the above passage has the blessing of DCI Nicola Wall, those above her in the Met and elsewhere, the McCann Team and all those powers-that-be who are working out how to move to the final resolution of this case.

I think it may represent a move away from DCI Andy Redwood's previous statements that Madeleine might have been murdered in the apartment - 'may have been dead before she left the apartment' were his words, I think.

That suggested that the Met was going to blame the blood and cadaver scent on the abductor killing Madeleine in the apartment, however unlikely that might be.

Now it looks like the final resolution will instead involve a full frontal attack on the dogs' findings.

Thus, we now have these four views, all more or less in harmony:

1. Gerry McCann: "Cadaver dogs are incredibly unreliable" 

2. Kate McCann: "The dogs were reacting to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler"

3. Dr Maureen Smyth: "The forensic reports amount to a whole lot of nothing" 

4. Summers & Swan: "The dogs only 'seemed' to pick up the smell of human blood...",  "location of the samples taken from the wall and floor does not indicate that Madeleine...was assaulted there....", "There is no typical 'smear pattern'...", "Photographs of areas of the apartment's living-room...do not support the notion that anyone cleaned the wall in an attempt to obliterate evidence".


But Summers and Swan skillfully manage to gloss over Eddie's alerts...

...and one particular paragraph is interesting because Summer & Swan take particular care to assure their readers that none of these happened:


A. Madeleine didn't fall near the window

B. Madeleine wasn't assualted or attacked near the window

C. Madeleine didn't bleed near the window

D. No-one cleaned the wall to obliterate evidence.

Why are they so keen to tell us all this?

Weeks later, of course, sniffer dogs used in the apartment- and around the car Madeleine's parents had rented almost a month after their daughter's disappearance- had seemed to pick up the smell of human blood. One of them, trained to search for dead bodies, had reacted positively. This had lead to much excitement, lurid headlines and a nightmare of uniformed finger pointing at Gerry and Kate McCann that lingers to this day.

This is an incredible slated version of what the dogs indicated.

"Seemed".

BOTH DOGS S&S.... BOTH DOGS.... in the SAME PLACES.... SEVEN PLACES in different locations and on various items..

For both dogs to be wrong seven times in a row in different locations is statistically improbable given the track record of these dogs.

Blood and cadaverine... it was there because these excellent dogs indicated it.

This is pathetic.

.

Where have these chapters come from?

The spelling is appalling, surely they haven't been published in that state?

Two experts paid (?) for their opinions.

Firstly it depends upon what was presented to the experts.

Secondly, if a hundred experts were asked to give their opinion and two of them gave the opinion sought it's those opinions that will be published....if you have an agenda that is.

Crikey, Janner had 4 doctors to say he's non compus mentis whilst he continued to run a company and speak in the H.O.L.

What's remarkable is the timing of the original release of the book and the very swift update which still speaks of 'haters', and now seeks to further diss the dogs with two expert opinions.

A swift update on a book when simply nothing has happened in the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance is questionable isn't it?

Just my opinion.

kinell wrote:Where have these chapters come from?

The spelling is appalling, surely they haven't been published in that state?

I just took it that whatsupdoc typed up the chapters from hard copy.

I've edited out the sarcastic remark I made and apologise.

aquila wrote:

kinell wrote:Where have these chapters come from?

The spelling is appalling, surely they haven't been published in that state?

I just took it that whatsupdoc typed up the chapters from hard copy.

Sorry to disappoint those who want to make a meal of things.

Oh ok, if that's the case then I apologise to whatsupdoc.

Fascinating how desperate they are to rubbish and decry and dismiss the dogs' alerts.
It is clearly one of the main things that worries TM. They had not expected British dogs to be brought in, and have no response
Not even Mitchell "answers to anything the police may or may not find" cannot come up with anything remotely plausible.

Let us remember
Jeanette Zapata.
Bianca Jones
Kate Prout
Susan Pilley
Cori Baker
Etan Patz
Lauryn Dickens
Caylee Anthony,
Kirsi Gifford-Hull R.I.P.
and many more.

aquila wrote:A swift update on a book when simply nothing has happened in the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance is questionable isn't it?

Absolutely!

This isn't about Finding Madeleine, it's about smacking the dissenters.

I spotted a tweet by jontait this morning and followed a link and C&P it.

The spelling is poor and even the title of the book is spelt wrong so I don't know the true source. I'll see if I can chase it up. I believe it to be in the style of S&S and not made up.

It is, as it says in the first sentence of Ch 26, a new edition so it looks like poor packaging for when the case is wrapped up.

Just for the record, I'm not offended by any of the good people on this forum.

Oh, yes, and by the way.
I did buy the book
I did read it
It is still rubbish
And I said so on Amazon - giving reasons and examples.

aquila wrote:Two experts paid (?) for their opinions.

Firstly it depends upon what was presented to the experts.

Secondly, if a hundred experts were asked to give their opinion and two of them gave the opinion sought it's those opinions that will be published....if you have an agenda that is.

Crikey, Janner had 4 doctors to say he's non compus mentis whilst he continued to run a company and speak in the H.O.L.

What's remarkable is the timing of the original release of the book and the very swift update which still speaks of 'haters', and now seeks to further diss the dogs with two expert opinions.

A swift update on a book when simply nothing has happened in the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance is questionable isn't it?

Just my opinion.

Two experts, one of whom wishes to remain anonymous.   

Not a great lover of experts who wish to remain anonymous no matter the reason.

If the expert is working on a different high profile case, why get involved at all?

Who asked these experts for their opinion and as aquila asked - were they paid?

PeterMac wrote:Oh, yes, and by the way.
I did buy the book
I did read it
It is still rubbish
And I said so on Amazon - giving reasons and examples.

oh dear, can't see that going down well PeterM.

BlueBag wrote:

Weeks later, of course, sniffer dogs used in the apartment- and around the car Madeleine's parents had rented almost a month after their daughter's disappearance- had seemed to pick up the smell of human blood. One of them, trained to search for dead bodies, had reacted positively. This had lead to much excitement, lurid headlines and a nightmare of uniformed finger pointing at Gerry and Kate McCann that lingers to this day.

This is an incredible slated version of what the dogs indicated.

"Seemed".

BOTH DOGS S&S.... BOTH DOGS.... in the SAME PLACES.... SEVEN PLACES in different locations and on various items..

For both dogs to be wrong seven times in a row in different locations is statistically improbable given the track record of these dogs.

Blood and cadaverine... it was there because these excellent dogs indicated it.

This is pathetic.

.

Also didn't the Mcs deny in the Levison Inquiry that the dogs did not alert and no evidence was found (blood)anywhere and that the newspapers had made it all up !!!

Well this has blown their lie out of the water here !

snipped from the OP

"

The two scientists state, moreover, that - contrary to what some have suggested- the location of the samples taken from the wall and floor does not indicate that Madeleine, or anyone else, fell or was assaulted there. There is no typical 'smear pattern', no 'trail' of marks consistent with the scenario of someone being attacked, or bleeding as the result of a fall. Photographs of areas of the apartment's living-room wall that accompany the relevant reports, showing what appear to be smear marks, are consistent with what one might find in any average household. They do not support the notion that anyone cleaned the wall in an attempt to obliterate evidence. "

Did the experts suggest what the markings on the wall were?  How long had they been there?  

I know that if I had been living in an apartment for a  whole week with those marks on the wall I would have had a word with management why the place had not been cleaned before our arrival?

How long had those marks been on the wall?

The efforts to which Scotland Yard and it's crack team of investigators have gone to make themselves look increasingly ridiculous and foolish to the outside world, seems to know no boundaries.

However, I do not recall any SY officer attempting to discredit the findings of the 2 dogs.Obviously, others associated with the McCanns have tried to do so, but no SY officer has. This causes a problem for them. Everyone knows that the dogs findings and alerts are damning and will not go away.Yet if any officer of SY was to attempt to dismiss these alerts, then the use of and findings of specialist dogs in any future case can be challenged.It will provide any Legal Defence team with a ready made argument to protect their client.

SY can not even use the explanation that it was 'sub-standard' Portuguese trained dogs that got it wrong.If SY dismiss their alerts in this case, then how will they ever be able to argue for their use again in future cases.

Why are Summers and Swan, Tracey and Donal, Clarence Mitchell and the other salaried/ paid supporters - all retro-fitting up the McCanns abduction theory for years.  Why is there a need for this type of 3rd party reputation management? Why from the outset didn't the advisors just say to the McCanns, "if you are innocent of any wrong doing and want to demonstrate this, then empirically answer your accusers questions, clear your name and get on with the important job of finding your daughter. You can achieve this by simply...

1.  Doing the lie detector test, don't worry about a bad result, it can happen agree to do the test again and then again if necessary.
2.  Answering the good policeman's 48 questions
3.  Explain the SMS activity and name the recipients (provide affidavit's if necessary)
4.  Doing the reconstruction of events of May 3rd 2007
5.  Tell the public why you said what you said on the airport transfer bus
6.  Tell the public why you were joking at the terrace doors of someone apartment only days after you daughter disappearance.
7.  etc etc  The good members of this forum can add countless other items to the list

If you do this you will have no need to sue individuals for libel or newspapers for libel nor Mr Bennet for deformation because there simply won't be any libel or defamation and guess what... the fund, yes the fund will grow like no fund has grown before."

I suspect the advisors did say this, because it's so straightforward and sensible and the McCanns, Gerald in particular knew the downside of coming clean and went on his own hell bent and perverted course of reputation management and this is what we see today, Gerald's Frankensteins... Summers and Swan, Tracey and Donal, Clarence Mitchell and the other salaried/ paid supporters - all retro-fitting up the McCanns abduction theory.

Sounds like a terminal case of sour grapes to me. I wonder where the droves of mccann supporters were to counter these spurious attacks on the validity of this'serious' journalistic work?

Phew!

'strap line' added by Judy Drunkalltheginagain.

SO, It MUST be TRUE!

Super sleuth, ex pretendy "Detective Superintendent" Judy Pissedagain, 'said' 'THIS is the revised most definitive account, of what happened. to Madeleine. S&S, previous. most definitive account was, they admit. not the most definitive account. THIS IS'

jeanmonroe wrote:

Phew!

'strap line' added by Judy Drunkalltheginagain.

SO, It MUST be TRUE!

Super sleuth, ex pretendy "Detective Superintendent" Judy Pissedagain, 'said' 'THIS is the revised most definitive account, of what happened. to Madeleine. S&S, previous. most definitive account was, they admit. not the most definitive account. THIS IS'

Dr What wrote:The efforts to which Scotland Yard and it's crack team of investigators have gone to make themselves look increasingly ridiculous and foolish to the outside world, seems to know no boundaries.

However, I do not recall any SY officer attempting to discredit the findings of the 2 dogs.Obviously, others associated with the McCanns have tried to do so, but no SY officer has. This causes a problem for them. Everyone knows that the dogs findings and alerts are damning and will not go away.Yet if any officer of SY was to attempt to dismiss these alerts, then the use of and findings of specialist dogs in any future case can be challenged.It will provide any Legal Defence team with a ready made argument to protect their client.

SY can not even use the explanation that it was 'sub-standard' Portuguese trained dogs that got it wrong.If SY dismiss their alerts in this case, then how will they ever be able to argue for their use again in future cases.

Indeed,it would open the legal system to be awash with appeals on anyone convicted using sniffer dogs over the last few decades,and make them worthless in any future crimes.

The dogs are a massive hurdle that cannot be overcome.

What enormous fun!

S&S have made themselves look silly again!

Someone should tell them that this can only get worse. 

As Dr. What has said previously, they can't 'dis the dogs'. This is the only thing they can't get away from.

So they try and try to discredit them. In fact, when they brought in the dogs during the "digging" and only found only a sock I was tempted to think this was going to be part of the dissing. But they haven't gone that far yet. But I am expecting it.

As for Chapter 25, this IMO is trying to create a defence for what happened to Brenda Leyland. It's all wallpaper!

PeterMac wrote:Fascinating how desperate they are to rubbish and decry and dismiss the dogs' alerts.
It is clearly one of the main things that worries TM.  They had not expected British dogs to be brought in, and have no response
Not even Mitchell "answers to anything the police may or may not find" cannot come up with anything remotely plausible.

Let us remember
Jeanette Zapata.
Bianca Jones
Kate Prout
Susan Pilley
Cori Baker
Etan Patz
Lauryn Dickens
Caylee Anthony,
Kirsi Gifford-Hull   R.I.P.
and many more.

Believe me, TRUST me, if any of the children of McCann's, Mitchell, S&S, or ANY police 'dog doubters', went 'missing', THEY would be the very first people to be screaming at the police, 'where's the bl**dy police sniffer dogs?'

Hypocrites, one and all!

jeanmonroe wrote:

Phew!

'strap line' added by Judy Drunkalltheginagain.

SO, It MUST be TRUE!

Super sleuth, ex pretendy "Detective Superintendent" Judy Pissedagain, 'said' 'THIS is the revised most definitive account, of what happened. to Madeleine. S&S, previous. most definitive account was, they admit. not the most definitive account. THIS IS'

I think that is your funniest ever JeanM.   Soooooooooooooooo funny.  

When was this expert advice obtained?   Before or after  the first book got a drubbing?

The Rooster wrote:Why are Summers and Swan, Tracey and Donal, Clarence Mitchell and the other salaried/ paid supporters - all retro-fitting up the McCanns abduction theory for years.  Why is there a need for this type of 3rd party reputation management? Why from the outset didn't the advisors just say to the McCanns, "if you are innocent of any wrong doing and want to demonstrate this, then empirically answer your accusers questions, clear your name and get on with the important job of finding your daughter. You can achieve this by simply...

1.  Doing the lie detector test, don't worry about a bad result, it can happen agree to do the test again and then again if necessary.
2.  Answering the good policeman's 48 questions
3.  Explain the SMS activity and name the recipients (provide affidavit's if necessary)
4.  Doing the reconstruction of events of May 3rd 2007
5.  Tell the public why you said what you said on the airport transfer bus
6.  Tell the public why you were joking at the terrace doors of someone apartment only days after you daughter disappearance.
7.  etc etc  The good members of this forum can add countless other items to the list

If you do this you will have no need to sue individuals for libel or newspapers for libel nor Mr Bennett for defamation because there simply won't be any libel or defamation and guess what... the fund, yes the fund will grow like no fund has grown before."

I suspect the advisors did say this, because it's so straightforward and sensible and the McCanns, Gerald in particular knew the downside of coming clean and went on his own hell bent and perverted course of reputation management and this is what we see today, Gerald's Frankensteins... Summers and Swan, Tracey and Donal, Clarence Mitchell and the other salaried/paid supporters - all retro-fitting up the McCanns abduction theory.

@ The Rooster

It's a while since we've seen you here - and the wait has been worth it, as IMO this is the best post I've ever seen from you.

But I think one further element is missing from your analysis if I may say so - and that's the level of government involvement, as in:

* Phone calls from Brown to Gerry
* Phone calls from Blair to Gerry & Kate
* Top man of the media Monitring Unit (CM) despatched post haste to Praia da Luz
* CM told by the government that this was 'a clear case of stranger abduction'
* MI5 and security services involved in 'profiling' Robert Murat as the abductor
* Bob Small of Leics Police having a long chat to Jane Tanner the very day she later identified Murat as the man she had seen on 3 May
* Involvement of Control Risks Group - government-related risk management company
* Investigators close to government intelligence agencies: Kevin Halligen (MoD), Henri Exton (Ex-head of MI5 Covert Intelligence Department), Tim Craig-Harvey (close connections with government security services), Gary Hagland (Hong Kong intelligence services and with friends at MI6)  
* Special Branch escorting the McCanns on journeys in England
* High-powered team involving government departments set up by Leics Police 8 May 2007
* Cameron deciding on Operation Grange
* Current DPP Alison Saunders visiting Portuguese Police in 2013

...and there is so much more

if any of the children of McCann's,

 If either of the other children of the McCanns..... that should read, because one child has gone missing.

Miraflores wrote:

if any of the children of McCann's,

 If either of the other children of the McCanns..... that should read, because one child has gone missing.

I wonder, 'who's' FAULT, that was, exactly?

I agree with you Mr Bennett, the Government involvement is unprecedented in a child disappearance, rather akin to that of a high ranking diplomat or royal family member abduction or break in or theft etc.  But for the likes of the McCanns! It suggests something very important is at the center of the affair.  How Gerald McCann has been allowed to swagger in drunken like joy at the attention he receives must gall the politicians who have protected him thus far.  Let Paxman re-question him!