"Looking for Madeleine" by Summers and Swan: A Book Review by Pat Brown - Part One

 "Looking for Madeleine" by Summers and Swan: A Book Review - Part One

By Pat Brown, Criminal Profiler

I have finally received my copy of Looking for Madeleine by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan and I promised that, in spite of my moratorium on commenting on the Madeleine McCann case, I would review this book because my name shows up in it and I predicted months ago that this book was going to be pro-McCann and written cleverly enough to convince anyone unfamiliar with the police files to believe what is contained within this supposedly first "independent and objective" account of the case.

Today I will address the author's claim to be objective and to have done extremely thorough research. I will start with the bit in the book about me because....well, naturally, that was the bit I just had to read. You will find the part about me on pages 196-197.

First of all, it is hard to exactly know where they got their information from because these supposedly professional journalists failed to include any footnotes in their book nor did they have a bibliography at the end. I surely included footnotes when I wrote The Murder of Cleopatra...how else would people verify what I researched and be able to learn more about what others had written on her history? When I read people complaining online, I saw Summers and Swann's reply that these folks need only to read the source notes. Well, I have the book in front of me and they meant this literally. There is a chapter called "Source Notes" within which is explained the they had read from the police files and Gonçalo Amaral's book and they also noted a number of media sources. THIS is NOT a bibliography. Although Summers claimed in his email to me that he had read my blogs and book, he doesn't mention these in his "source notes".....oh, yeah, well, he probably actually didn't read them at all. He mentions my blog, The Daily Profiler, in one of the chapters on haters, but he doesn't directly quote me (because I refused him permission) so he instead paraphrases what I said and does not footnote where he got this information from. I actually had to Google some of the key words to find out exactly which of the 72 blogs I have written on the McCann case it came from and, interestingly, what I cam up with was the Stop the Myths site.

As a matter of fact, from what I could Google, most of Summers and Swan's questions to me came directly from the Stop the Myths, a, vicious pro-McCann site, which is why I got warning bells that I was about to be put in a conspiracy theorist or hater section of the book. It would seem to me that when the authors did research, they only did their research on the pro-McCann sites. I got no feeling through our email conversation that the authors had studied my profile of the case and they never asked for an interview early on (they only called me for quote permission right before publication) so that they might really pick my brain for my professional analysis of the case. After refusing to allow Summers and Swan to quote my blog, I suggested that they ask me questions about my take on the case and my profile and they could quote from my answers. They did ask me a few vague questions and these were my answers:

1) When a child goes missing from home, the police are faced with four possibilities: the child ran away, the child wandered away and met with an accident, the child was abducted, or someone in the home removed a live or dead child and is not telling the truth to the police. As Madeleine was not yet four years old at the time of her disappearance, it is obvious she was not a runaway. Although it is possible she could have wandered out of the vacation flat, her body was never found nearby nor was there any evidence she opened either door and walked into the street to then be abducted. The third possibility is that of a predator breaking in and abducting the child which there has never been any evidence to support. The fourth possible cause of Madeleine's disappearance is that something happened to her inside the vacation flat and the parents removed her body and are covering up a crime. 

In spite of the lack of evidence supporting an abduction, the Portuguese police immediately focused on the child being taken by a local predator; this is not uncommon as well-healed distraught parents rarely become suspects in the early days as detectives tend to feel sympathetic toward parents who appear to be a noncriminal type. Because Robert Murat lived only a block away from the flat and exhibited some concerning behaviors, he became an Arguido, a suspect, which is not unreasonable at that point in the investigation. However, it would have been best if the parents had also been considered suspects from the early days of the investigation and then both avenues could have been investigated until evidence narrowed the focus down to one theory. Later on, statements and behaviors from the McCanns and their friends raised the detectives' suspicions that they might have had something to do with what happened to Madeleine, and when no evidence of abduction was able to be found and cadaver and blood dogs hit in the vacation flat and in the McCanns' hire car, the police had no choice but to declare the McCanns Arguidos. To this day, Gonçalo Amaral believes the evidence points to the McCanns' involvement with the death and disappearance of their daughter, as do I. The three-year-long Scotland Yard review has not provided one shred of evidence that any abductor removed Madeleine from the flat and it is concerning that they have never gone back to the beginning of the case and reinterviewed that parents and their friends nor done a crime reconstruction of the night in question.

2) After seven years of analyzing this case and traveling to Portugal and Praia da Luz to study the crime location, it is my conclusion that there is no evidence of stranger abduction and the physical and behavioral evidence continues to support my theory that the McCanns were involved with the death and disappearance of their daughter. It is clear after visiting the location of the vacation flat, the the statement of Jane Tanner that she saw both Gerry McCann chatting with a friend on the street at the very time a man carrying a small child away from the flat is unlikely to be truthful. On a street as narrow as that one is between the McCanns' flat and the Tapas dining area, there is no possible way Gerry and his friend did not see either Jane or the possible kidnapper. Scotland Yard's claim on CrimeWatch that Jane really did see a man carrying a child, that this man was a vacationer carrying his child back to his apartment after an evening of childcare provided by the hotel, is not credible  - as the man would have been walking in the wrong direction. Furthermore, this man never came forward for seven years and Scotland Yard has not given out the name of this supposed tourist.

After examining the crime scene and statements and behaviors of the parents and their friends and taking into account the evidence of the cadaver and blood dogs, the evidence points to Madeleine being overmedicated by her parents and having an accident while they were not in the apartment. The sighting by the Smith family of a man carrying a child toward the beach from the direction of the vacation flat has a high likelihood of being Gerry McCann. It is my theory that he temporarily housed Madeleine's body near the beach and in the early morning hours, moved her body to a gravel and rock filled crevice on the Rocha Negra, the large rock that soars above Praia da Luz. Such a burial spot is easily accessible from the beach and a excellent location to hide a body without the necessity of a shovel. Later, when Kate McCann told a Portuguese detective of a dream she had in which she saw Madeleine dead on a slab of rock and the cadaver dogs were going to be brought in, I theorize that Gerry McCann then moved Madeleine's body to a more remote location, possibly a desolate area just west of Praia da Luz near where Gerry's phone pinged over a couple of days, a hilly, shrub area known as Monte do Jose Mestre. Unless Scotland Yard or the Portuguese police search this area in the manner in which they searched three locations (based on the residences and work locations of local criminal suspects) fruitlessly near Praia da Luz, then it is clear Madeleine's body will never be discovered except by accident.

It is the totality of the evidence that leads me to believe the McCanns should be reinstated as suspects. With no evidence of abduction, there is no reason to spend millions of pounds chasing bogeymen all over the world and digging up acres of ground in Portugal when there is not a shred of evidence to warrant such actions.

Summers responded with this:

  I've now read and digested. There will be a problem with length, but I promise you what will emerge will be faithful to what you've written

Lying. Dog. As I suspected, nothing of what I wrote in answer to his questions was included in his book. Instead, he pulls stuff out of context that he found on the Stop the Myths site and then
 ignores my statements that I permitted him to quote. Finally, he libels me by stating "The adventure (my trip to Praia da Luz) produced only substantial self-publicity." (Summers,A, Swann, R., Looking for Madeleine, page 197 - this is a footnote). I learned a good deal in Praia da Luz which could forward the case if investigators took my findings into account.

It seems obvious to me Summers and Swan's only goal in including me in their book was to prove my profiling of the case had no merit and that I was one of the haters. Although they mention my blog on the case, I am quite certain it is to present me something less than a professional profiler and more of a blogger. After tearing apart Nancy Grace, it is then mentioned I was a regular on her show. No where is my book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann mentioned or the fact that the McCanns Carter-Rucked it. And since there are no footnotes, no one can double-check the veracity of the authors version of my commentary nor see in what context such commentary was made.

One of the advantages of being included in the book is that I know more than the innocent reader that not all is as it seems. Any reader unfamiliar with the police files or Gonçalo's book, The Truth of the Lie, or my book, or Tony Bennett's What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann: 60 reasons which suggest that she was not abducted, will likely believe that these two investigative journalists are presenting factual information and not a very slanted, subjective, and possibly commissioned version of the Madeleine McCann case.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

September 18, 2104

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/

Thanks for all that , Pat.

Joana Morais had her copyrighted blog quoted without permission and now you have had dirty , underhand tricks played on you. I noticed the pattern of the author, asking for info and then printing whatever he felt like editing, twisting and distorting. Leaving out large chunks of real evidence seems to be the norm. Hope you do still keep in touch with this case and we hear from you again.

Oh dear, caught out lying with as many teeth in their mouths.......
Spectacular own goal?

What more evidence is needed the book is a dishonest account from cover to cover?

If Pat has been libeled she should take the appropriate legal action. Shoe's on the other foot and all that.

aiyoyo wrote:Oh dear, caught out lying with as many teeth in their mouths.......
Spectacular own goal?

What more evidence is needed the book is a dishonest account from cover to cover?

Their MO seems shady and disgraceful, not what you would expect from some writing a thorough and objective account.

Does make you wonder whether they have told the whole of teh story about how they came to write the book.

It also calls into question all their other books and how those were researched and written.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

"Looking for Madeleine" by Summers and Swan: A Book Review by Profiler Pat Brown - Part Two

One of the rules of statement analysis is to pay very close attention to what is the first thing to come out of a person's mouth because that is the the most important piece of information the person wants to convey. For example, in the 911 call place by Darcie Routier on June 6, 1991, she told the operator this: "Somebody came here....they broke in...they just stabbed me....and my children."

Darlie did not immediately scream for help to save her children (two boys who were stabbed to death). What she most wanted the police to know was that someone else committed the crime. The next most important thing was to convey the attack came from outside the home. Then she wanted to make sure it was known that she was a victim. Oh, yeah, and, by the way, the children were stabbed as well. Darlie is on death row as of today.

Now, what struck me the minute I opened up Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan's book was the Author's Note. Pay attention to the very first thing these authors want you to believe, the very first thing. Then, note the second most important point, and the third. I will reproduce the Authors' Note in full.

The authors wish to make clear at the outset that, after more than two years studying this controversial case, they have seen not a shred of evidence to indicate that Gerry and Kate McCann, any member of their holiday group, or Robert Murat, were at any stage - in May 2007 or subsequently - guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann's disappearance or the repercussions that followed.

Allegations or innuendos about their role made or published by others, when referenced in the text of the book, are published only in the interests of reporting the history of the case- and to demonstrate the very point that such allegations are based on no factual evidence or are simply egregious.

This book has been researched and written independently of Gerry and Kate McCann.

So, the most important thing is NOT that the authors are going to be objective and allow the reader to hear all the theories, all the expert opinions, and allow them to deduce where they believe the truth lies. No, the most important issue is to shout out that the McCanns are innocent, so innocent, in fact, that there is not even the smallest scintilla of evidence that should raise an eyebrow. The second most important point they want people to get is that anyone who dares to question the McCanns is egregious in doing so because - although police detectives and profilers and numerous other professionals doubt the McCanns' innocence - these two journalist know better than any of them that there is not a shred of evidence that should have led any of these professionals to such a conclusion. Hence, they are all hacks and haters.

And, the third most important reason for this book is that the authors want the readers to believe that the McCanns in no way influenced their decision to write this book, did not influence what they researched and who they interviewed, nor did they influence what was written or have any say in the final manuscript. This is what they want readers to believe although this final sentence of the Authors' Note does not actually say that; the sentence simply says they did some work on their own as doing something independently does not mean that there is not a directive, there is not oversight, and there is not a final approval.

For supposedly objective journalists, this opening speech is markedly bizarre for two peoople who just want to tell a story, to report what happened, to lay out the facts.

These two people are on a mission to exonerate the McCanns and crush any opposition. I wonder if they were cheaper than Carter-Ruck.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

September 19, 2014

admin wrote:Thursday, September 18, 2014

"Looking for Madeleine" by Summers and Swan: A Book Review by Profiler Pat Brown - Part Two

One of the rules of statement analysis is to pay very close attention to what is the first thing to come out of a person's mouth because that is the the most important piece of information the person wants to convey. For example, in the 911 call place by Darcie Routier on June 6, 1991, she told the operator this: "Somebody came here....they broke in...they just stabbed me....and my children."

Darlie did not immediately scream for help to save her children (two boys who were stabbed to death). What she most wanted the police to know was that someone else committed the crime. The next most important thing was to convey the attack came from outside the home. Then she wanted to make sure it was known that she was a victim. Oh, yeah, and, by the way, the children were stabbed as well. Darlie is on death row as of today.

This outstanding obseavation ties in with the TM statements that were released through MSM on 4 May - 'front door open, windows tampered with, shutters jemmied'. From zero hour TM wanted the world to be in absolutely no doubt that someone broke into 5A & forceably removed Madeleine. Forget the PJ & an investigation, the world had to know this.

Excellent analysis by Pat.

I hope there is more to come.

PB - 'I wonder if they were cheaper than Carter-Ruck'
Interesting. Would part funding this book be a legitimate use of fund monies? If so then another source of income along with serialisation and libraries to make the project a guaranteed 'nice little earner' for the authors before it was even written and whether or not any copies are actually 'sold' in the traditional way.

Whereas earlier there was a niggling thought in my mind their book is perhaps a commissioned work, that their names were used  bought to afford credibility to the story;  I'd given them the benefit of doubt. But, now that I know they used STM as source for materials, I find it disturbing that any serious crime-non-fiction writers would use 'stop the myths' as source of reference. That, to me, demonstrates a clear agenda; one that is far removed from being objective.  There is no doubt in mind now they set out to write a biased book, and thus the $million question is why?
Apart from the apparent profit from book sales that any writer could hope for, what other benefits are in it for them as ghost writers to align with Team Mccann's agenda?  It must be more than just fear of being sued by the Mccanns. 

They literally whitewash this case that is still under investigation. So unless they have inside or privileged knowledge that the investigation would come to nought, you'd think they would at the very least be wary of facing reputation damage and repercussions in the event the investigation should turn out contrary to their firm adopted stance of exonerating the Mcs in their book.  

Shocking they went the extent to deceive PB only to show themselves up for putting porky pies in the book.
  It boggles the mind that someone bearing that kind of accolades would jeopardise their achievements by sticking up for the Mccanns.

Anyone with half a brain can guess which wealthy person (staunch unconditional supporter of Mccanns) giving freely of his time to the writers to talk about the private search efforts has the means to commission such a work. JMO on this.  

I question why they would put their good names on the line if there's no monetary returns to be had in being led merrily down Mcs' garden path to come up with a shitload of horse's manure. 

What could possibly be the attractant in it for them if not $$$ £££ ? Hoping for another accolade in the horizon?  Hmm ....a bullitshit prize is heading their way, if there's such a category, going by the miserable sale figure on Amazon.

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:

admin wrote:Thursday, September 18, 2014

"Looking for Madeleine" by Summers and Swan: A Book Review by Profiler Pat Brown - Part Two

One of the rules of statement analysis is to pay very close attention to what is the first thing to come out of a person's mouth because that is the the most important piece of information the person wants to convey. For example, in the 911 call place by Darcie Routier on June 6, 1991, she told the operator this: "Somebody came here....they broke in...they just stabbed me....and my children."

Darlie did not immediately scream for help to save her children (two boys who were stabbed to death). What she most wanted the police to know was that someone else committed the crime. The next most important thing was to convey the attack came from outside the home. Then she wanted to make sure it was known that she was a victim. Oh, yeah, and, by the way, the children were stabbed as well. Darlie is on death row as of today.

This outstanding obseavation ties in with the TM statements that were released through MSM on 4 May - 'front door open, windows tampered with, shutters jemmied'. From zero hour TM wanted the world to be in absolutely no doubt that someone broke into 5A & forceably removed Madeleine. Forget the PJ & an investigation, the world had to know this.

And how odd when your hope would be she had wandered off and fallen asleep somewhere safe and warm...

Okeydokey wrote:

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:

admin wrote:Thursday, September 18, 2014

"Looking for Madeleine" by Summers and Swan: A Book Review by Profiler Pat Brown - Part Two

One of the rules of statement analysis is to pay very close attention to what is the first thing to come out of a person's mouth because that is the the most important piece of information the person wants to convey. For example, in the 911 call place by Darcie Routier on June 6, 1991, she told the operator this: "Somebody came here....they broke in...they just stabbed me....and my children."

Darlie did not immediately scream for help to save her children (two boys who were stabbed to death). What she most wanted the police to know was that someone else committed the crime. The next most important thing was to convey the attack came from outside the home. Then she wanted to make sure it was known that she was a victim. Oh, yeah, and, by the way, the children were stabbed as well. Darlie is on death row as of today.

This outstanding obseavation ties in with the TM statements that were released through MSM on 4 May - 'front door open, windows tampered with, shutters jemmied'. From zero hour TM wanted the world to be in absolutely no doubt that someone broke into 5A & forceably removed Madeleine. Forget the PJ & an investigation, the world had to know this.

And how odd when your hope would be she had wandered off and fallen asleep somewhere safe and warm...

Well as a parent that's the outcome I'd be hoping for. Or some kind person was trying to comfort an upset little one trying to find its mummy or daddy. But then, woooosshhhh go the curtains

After reading about S and S nothing different in book which is not in police files which can be read for free. Looks as if they don' t have any opinion about TM other than there is no evidence to implicate them. Everything I have read,  says the opposite loads of evidence but seemingly SY and PGL can't see it.  It's a Pity Pat...Goncalo... and Tony not on the case would have been solved long ago.IMO anyway.Their book will not make one bit of difference to all who have read the proper PJ Files.

Rogue-a-tory wrote: But then, woooosshhhh go the curtains 

Another question for S&S.

They have promised to answer civil questions.

I have yet to see any evidence of the promise.

Friday, September 19, 2014
"Looking for Madeleine" by Summers and Swan: A Book Review by Pat Brown - Part Three


Today I have finished  reading Looking for Madeleine by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan and I sadly find I was right about my prediction that this book would be well-written enough to satisfy the masses that the McCanns are innocent of any involvement in their child's disappearance. As I read the narrative, I could feel myself starting to question their guilt and feeling my own guilt rising for ever thinking these two wonderful parents did anything questionable. Bravo, Summers and Swan, mission accomplished.

But, I know what they doing because I have experienced similar responses when I read well-constructed critical reviews of two of my own books, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and The Murder of Cleopatra, reviews written cleverly enough that I started doubting my own theories and wondering how I came up with them at all. I had to go back and reread my books to see what I really had said and then I could see exactly how these critics had deceived me with their reviews, using magician's tricks to obscure the truth. And, when you have an audience who is never going to read the source material (either because it is too much work or the reviewer doesn't bother to footnote where he gets his material or have a bibliography at the back of his book), the critic can blatantly lie as well and the reader will simply accept what he says. For example, a number of my detractors of The Murder of Cleopatra blithely stated I had done little research on her life and death, completely ignoring the extensive bibliography I included in the book (along with many footnotes). I have a wall of books on Cleopatra and Roman and Greek history, architecture, geography, seafaring, poisons, etc (which I read from beginning to end with notes in all the margins) and I have massive numbers of web searches on my computers where I looked for each and every reference I could find on issues related to analyzing the Pharaonic queen's history. Never mind the two trips I made to Egypt. But, "I did little research;" I just made up a theory out of thin air. Likewise, with Madeleine McCann. I read so many attacks taken totally out of context that I had to go and read exactly what I did say and why I said it and when I said it and what I said before and after I said it.Cherry-picking  bits of info and then cleverly creating a narrative around them is the way readers can be deceived into believing what they are reading is factual and honest.

And this is what Summers and Swan do and do well. They cherry-pick facts which will support their narrative that the McCanns are innocent of any wrongdoing. Then, they weave an emotional story around them and find all the supports they can to bolster the "validity" of what they are saying. Any facts that are damning or that would raise questions are simple left out of the book. Glaringly so, to people who have followed this case and read the police files, but to those that know little except what they have seen in the media, they won't have a clue they aren't getting the whole story.

The other technique used by the detractors of the my two books and used heavily by Summers and Swan is the ad hominem attack. Those who attacked my Madeleine book spend a good deal of time trashing my professionalism. Attackers of Cleopatra book claim I can't properly analyze her life because I am not a historian. Summers and Swan deride all those who question the McCanns as haters or publicity seekers or incompetent morons.

Finally, Summers and Swan set themselves up, without any previous training, as better detectives and profilers than anyone else who has looked at the case. I have no problem with people who have not been trained analyzing something and then presenting good evidence to support their theory; in fact, I have been sometimes surprised by the good deductive reasoning of some lay people which is why I don't knock people who don't have a degree in a field for making a hypothesis. Sometimes experts are wrong and nonexperts are right. I don't object to Summers and Swan giving their opinion at some point (although for investigative journalists I should think this should be kept to a dull roar) but I do take issue with their incredibly arrogant stance that their deductions are clearly the right ones and those who question the McCanns in any way are one hundred percent wrong.

I won't bother to go into detail on all the inaccuracies in the book, the deceptions, the glaring omissions...I will leave that to other reviewers.  My final thought on this book is simply that it has achieved its purpose; to create a final narrative in favor of the McCanns and abduction. I don't think it matters how well it sells or if it has a bunch of one-star reviews on Amazon because this book isn't about sales but propaganda. I do believe this book was commissioned and the publisher had no issue with putting the book out there because it wasn't going to be Carter-Rucked and might sell well enough for a profit (as long as they didn't have to spend money on publicity which clearly they did not). I find it extremely odd that the publishers did not send out copies prior to publication for reviews - an extremely common practice and one you would think would be done with authors with a name - and I have to wonder if part of the deal was actually an agreement to not encourage major reviews that might put a negative spin on the book. "Haters" on Amazon are not taken so seriously as are book reviewers with major newspapers and magazines. It will be interesting to see if anyone does dare to write a less than favorable review of this book, but there was a deafening silence in reviewland when this book hit the stands and one has to wonder why.

As I stated a few posts back, I will not be doing any more running commentary on the McCann case. I feel this book is the final spin to the public of the McCann's innocence, the trial will finish up (and I doubt in a very positive way, but I hope I am wrong), and Scotland Yard will wind down with either a dead suspect or a statement that they have a good idea of who kidnapped and killed Maddie but they can't get enough cooperation with Portugal or enough evidence to pursue the evildoers to prosecution.   Whether the truth will ever out remains to be seen.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

September 19, 2014

Well done Nina.

Deleting links on f/b would be self defeating if they had listed haters websites in their book.

Besides, if Hall's video link and Pat's blog were posted together with book reviews on Amazon, they can't stop or whoosh those.

whatsupdoc wrote:Friday, September 19, 2014
"Looking for Madeleine" by Summers and Swan: A Book Review by Pat Brown - Part Three


Today I have finished  reading Looking for Madeleine by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan and I sadly find I was right about my prediction that this book would be well-written enough to satisfy the masses that the McCanns are innocent of any involvement in their child's disappearance. As I read the narrative, I could feel myself starting to question their guilt and feeling my own guilt rising for ever thinking these two wonderful parents did anything questionable. Bravo, Summers and Swan, mission accomplished.

But, I know what they doing because I have experienced similar responses when I read well-constructed critical reviews of two of my own books, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and The Murder of Cleopatra, reviews written cleverly enough that I started doubting my own theories and wondering how I came up with them at all. I had to go back and reread my books to see what I really had said and then I could see exactly how these critics had deceived me with their reviews, using magician's tricks to obscure the truth. And, when you have an audience who is never going to read the source material (either because it is too much work or the reviewer doesn't bother to footnote where he gets his material or have a bibliography at the back of his book), the critic can blatantly lie as well and the reader will simply accept what he says. For example, a number of my detractors of The Murder of Cleopatra blithely stated I had done little research on her life and death, completely ignoring the extensive bibliography I included in the book (along with many footnotes). I have a wall of books on Cleopatra and Roman and Greek history, architecture, geography, seafaring, poisons, etc (which I read from beginning to end with notes in all the margins) and I have massive numbers of web searches on my computers where I looked for each and every reference I could find on issues related to analyzing the Pharaonic queen's history. Never mind the two trips I made to Egypt. But, "I did little research;" I just made up a theory out of thin air. Likewise, with Madeleine McCann. I read so many attacks taken totally out of context that I had to go and read exactly what I did say and why I said it and when I said it and what I said before and after I said it.Cherry-picking  bits of info and then cleverly creating a narrative around them is the way readers can be deceived into believing what they are reading is factual and honest.

And this is what Summers and Swan do and do well. They cherry-pick facts which will support their narrative that the McCanns are innocent of any wrongdoing. Then, they weave an emotional story around them and find all the supports they can to bolster the "validity" of what they are saying. Any facts that are damning or that would raise questions are simple left out of the book. Glaringly so, to people who have followed this case and read the police files, but to those that know little except what they have seen in the media, they won't have a clue they aren't getting the whole story.

The other technique used by the detractors of the my two books and used heavily by Summers and Swan is the ad hominem attack. Those who attacked my Madeleine book spend a good deal of time trashing my professionalism. Attackers of Cleopatra book claim I can't properly analyze her life because I am not a historian. Summers and Swan deride all those who question the McCanns as haters or publicity seekers or incompetent morons.

Finally, Summers and Swan set themselves up, without any previous training, as better detectives and profilers than anyone else who has looked at the case. I have no problem with people who have not been trained analyzing something and then presenting good evidence to support their theory; in fact, I have been sometimes surprised by the good deductive reasoning of some lay people which is why I don't knock people who don't have a degree in a field for making a hypothesis. Sometimes experts are wrong and nonexperts are right. I don't object to Summers and Swan giving their opinion at some point (although for investigative journalists I should think this should be kept to a dull roar) but I do take issue with their incredibly arrogant stance that their deductions are clearly the right ones and those who question the McCanns in any way are one hundred percent wrong.

I won't bother to go into detail on all the inaccuracies in the book, the deceptions, the glaring omissions...I will leave that to other reviewers.  My final thought on this book is simply that it has achieved its purpose; to create a final narrative in favor of the McCanns and abduction. I don't think it matters how well it sells or if it has a bunch of one-star reviews on Amazon because this book isn't about sales but propaganda. I do believe this book was commissioned and the publisher had no issue with putting the book out there because it wasn't going to be Carter-Rucked and might sell well enough for a profit (as long as they didn't have to spend money on publicity which clearly they did not). I find it extremely odd that the publishers did not send out copies prior to publication for reviews - an extremely common practice and one you would think would be done with authors with a name - and I have to wonder if part of the deal was actually an agreement to not encourage major reviews that might put a negative spin on the book. "Haters" on Amazon are not taken so seriously as are book reviewers with major newspapers and magazines. It will be interesting to see if anyone does dare to write a less than favorable review of this book, but there was a deafening silence in reviewland when this book hit the stands and one has to wonder why.

As I stated a few posts back, I will not be doing any more running commentary on the McCann case. I feel this book is the final spin to the public of the McCann's innocence, the trial will finish up (and I doubt in a very positive way, but I hope I am wrong), and Scotland Yard will wind down with either a dead suspect or a statement that they have a good idea of who kidnapped and killed Maddie but they can't get enough cooperation with Portugal or enough evidence to pursue the evildoers to prosecution.   Whether the truth will ever out remains to be seen.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

September 19, 2014

The only thing I disagree with in her review is that the S&S book is any way persuasive. I don't think they can even persuade the usual book publicity springboards that they have written a definitive account. Anyone with even a passing acquaintance of the case must see the numerous gaps in their account and even those with less knowledge must get a sense that there isn't much original material in the shape of new interviews.

Nina wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:Well done Nina.

Deleting links on f/b would be self defeating if they had listed haters websites in their book.

Besides, if Hall's video link and Pat's blog were posted together with book reviews on Amazon, they can't stop or whoosh those.

Well I hope that Pat brown puts a review onto Amazon.
To be fair though the facebook site of the authors has had a lot  of attention and only recently were some posts deleted so one hopes that many read even if not posting themselves.
Pamela Gurney has been there daily for many hours each day, I really do not know how she manages it.

If the book is on sale in America, it would be better if Pat Brown reviews the book on a TV chat show. 

Just imagine - her telling the American audience that the authors were dishonest  - they lied to her and libelled her. That their version is anything but definitive; at most a selective account with hidden agenda.   That the authors were deliberately dodgy in not providing bibliography that people can check or reference authenticity of source materials.

That will have a far reaching and bigger impact then any online review.

Okeydokey wrote:
The only thing I disagree with in her review is that the S&S book is any way persuasive.

Well quite.
16 copies sold so far,
TB, PB and I have one each.
I believe EO'D has one, which leaves only 12 more out there "persuading"

@Pat Brown - "One of the rules of statement analysis is to pay very close attention to what is the first thing to come out of a person's mouth because that is the the most important piece of information the person wants to convey. "

Taken, abducted, ...... by a paedophile