Appeal to Dutch members - Translating Peter Scharrenberg's book

#1 · by Guest 04.10.15 8:27

I just got Peter Scharrenberg's book.
I can do a review after reading it, but the better option for all would be to translate it.
Let's share the work. It's 216 pages.
Fifty pages each?
Tigger? lj? What about it?
I can make pics of the pages and mail them.
Anybody willing?
Let's show that we Dutch are willing and able to translate as well.
All to find truth and get justice done.

parapono

#2 · by **Jill Havern** 04.10.15 8:44

Thank you parapono!

#3 · by **PeterMac** 04.10.15 9:51

I believe he may be planning his own English version, so this might not be good.
From first reports by those who have started to read it, the book itself is shot through with mistakes as well, which is a shame.

#4 · by Guest 04.10.15 20:32

Hello all. I just had a phonecall from Peter Scharrenberg.
I mentioned the many mistakes he made in the book.
I read out the review I had written about it.
He was shocked by it. He decided to take the book off the market.
I have his permission to post this on the forum.

parapono

#5 · by **Tony Bennett** 04.10.15 21:23

parapono wrote:Hello all. I just had a phonecall from Peter Scharrenberg.
I mentioned the many mistakes he made in the book.
I read out the review I had written about it.
He was shocked by it. He decided to take the book off the market.
I have his permission to post this on the forum.

parapono

That sounds like an achievement.

I hope he will refund the cost of the book!

I think we need to know more about how and where this book was marketed and its true origin. Was it self-published? Was it on sale in the bookshops? - did you have to order it online? - was it on sale on Amazon?

What was Franca Pelster's role in all this?

#6 · by **Jill Havern** 05.10.15 9:12

Parapono asked for this thread and her review to be removed, so i've moved it here to Forum Support.

Am posting the review here on this thread though.

Have received an early report on the Peter Scharrenberg book from a Dutch contact, who writes:

QUOTE

I just woke up, made my breakfast and started on the book. It doesn't look good. He's using tabloid language, making things up.

Page ten: "The twins are one-year-old and sleeping in travel-cots"??

Halfway on page ten the writer states that:

"Gerry stands up first that evening (from the table I guess) and goes at ten past nine for the first time in the direction of the holiday-apartment.

"When he turns the key in the front door of apartment 5A,he is afraid the loud noise of the opening of the lock has awakened one of the children. He softly walks to the children's room, puts two steps inside - and sees the twins laying in their travel-cots and Madeleine in her little bed.

"It is quiet, they are sleeping..."

UNQUOTE

If I may be allowed to quote Mrs Pamela Fenn when she spoke on TV about her statement to the police, the best advice about this book would therefore seem to be:

"Ignore it...it's all a load of rubbish"

ETA: parapono's review:

Don't buy the book.

It's robot-produced back is broken already. It's shedding its pages.

The content? Riddled with mistakes and made up stuff. Full of misinformation and twisted stories.

Madeleine disappeared from her little bed. Mark Harrison is a doghandler, there's a superinjunction in place in the UK to ban all media to report about any involvement of the McCanns, Kate's wearing flip-flops, Murat had been arrested....

In between all this the book casts doubt on the parents, in nearly every chapter.

It also states there's no proof of their involvement.

It purports the theory of Gerry McCann being absent from the round table between  9.30 and 10.00 pm. Thus enabling the thought that a dead Madeleine was being carried by Gerry as seen by the Smith family. Next purported step is hidden in the church.

Perhaps unintentionally helped by father Pacheco, John Geraghty is also mentioned as possibly involved in the hiding of the body. This scenario also has the freezer incorporated, as those darn bodily fluids in the Scenic have to be explained.

And of course it's very critical of the Portuguese Police, but without mentioning the pressure they were under.

Strangely absent in the narrative are:
* The political side, no ambassador mentioned.
* No mention of the unhelpful attitude of the uk police on requests of the PJ
* No mention about the mediacircus that hit PdL.

It's badly written, disgustingly bad if I may say so.

It doesn't even get the names right while acknowledging sources on the last page. Jeanne Morais, Tony Bennet.

Question is, why was it written. It does suit the McCann agenda perfectly well.

It's privately published in a language not widely understood.

It creates more confusion.

It harms the integrity of the people that rightly question this case.

I wonder who's paying for it.

Nothing else to say really, ignore it!
'drops the last loose page'

#7 · by **Jill Havern** 05.10.15 17:43

- ‏@scharmedia · 5 mins5 minutes ago
@hwinnerz @KRotcepsni There were some minor misprints that had to be corrected. That's why. It is available again.#mccann

#8 · by **PeterMac** 05.10.15 22:41

Many thanks to all the Dutch speaking cohort, both here and anywhere else, for reading, translating and understanding the nuanced and impenetrable nature of the language . . .
and then obviously for contacting Peter S direct, and in some numbers (!), to point out some of the mistakes.
The fact that he withdrew the book within days, and has apparently sought to correct the errors of detail which might have allowed people to discount his entire thesis
on the basis of someone wearing flip-flops, when in fact it was the other one . . . . speaks to someone who is actually interested in the facts.
unlike others we could mention - but won't, as one should never throw stones at a cygnet, or look forward to the start of Autumn

I cannot wait for the revised flip-flopped edition to come out.
His central thesis and the evidence on which he bases it is the important bit.
It may still stand.
Or it may not.

We shall see