Summers & Swan - A new book - Looking For Madeleine

[Brietta]

It is quite possible that his conclusions re the Russian Royal Family were absolutely spot on based on the evidence at the time...

I thought so ... one of the most informative books I have read and very well researched.  A really good read.

So I have great hopes for 'Looking for Madeleine'.

[faithlilly]

Faithlilly - it seems you and Summers have been corresponding - why don't you ask him, not me?

No opinion Alfred ? You surprise me !

[Alfred R Jones]

No opinion Alfred ? You surprise me !

You didn't ask for an opinion - you asked me to tell you if the authors had contacted the McCanns and asked for an interview and if not why not.  Seriously, how the hell should I  know?  Do you want me to make up an answer to satisfy you?

[Mr Gray]

Absolutely but he still turned out to be completely wrong when all the facts were revealed.

So there is nothing to show that there is anything wrong with his judgement

[faithlilly]

So there is nothing to show that there is anything wrong with his judgement

I don't remember saying there was. I merely said that his conclusions, even with extensive research behind them. Have been proven to be wrong.

[stephen25000]

I don't remember saying there was. I merely said that his conclusions, even with extensive research behind them. Have been proven to be wrong.

Unfortunately Faithlilly, some will ignore the obvious, merely because they back the mccanms, no matter what.

[Mr Gray]

I don't remember saying there was. I merely said that his conclusions, even with extensive research behind them. Have been proven to be wrong.

But on the available evidence at the time his conclusions were perfectly valid...this is an important point...the evidence that proved him wrong was not available at the time...so there was nothing wrong with his research either

[Alfred R Jones]

But on the available evidence at the time his conclusions were perfectly valid...this is an important point...the evidence that proved him wrong was not available at the time...so there was nothing wrong with his research either

  It can't have been any good as he didn't interview the main protagonists (Faithlilly logic).

[Mr Gray]

let's put it this way...even Stephen will understand this..

The book does not name Murat as a suspect ... quite rightly...

If a body was found next month that proved with dna evidence that Murat was guilty..you can hardly blame the books authors for not suspecting him

[faithlilly]

But on the available evidence at the time his conclusions were perfectly valid...this is an important point...the evidence that proved him wrong was not available at the time...so there was nothing wrong with his research either

Again davel I absolutely agree but his conclusions were still wrong.

[faithlilly]

  It can't have been any good as he didn't interview the main protagonists (Faithlilly logic).

That would have been rather difficult Alfred as they were all dead.

[Alfred R Jones]

That would have been rather difficult Alfred as they were all dead.

Really?  I never knew. 

But seriously, earlier you stated that you could not write a fully researched book about a subject without interviewing the main protagonists.  If this truly is the case then no book about the Romanovs could ever be considered to be well researched.  Correct?

[faithlilly]

Really?  I never knew. 

But seriously, earlier you stated that you could not write a fully researched book about a subject without interviewing the main protagonists.  If this truly is the case then no book about the Romanovs could ever be considered to be well researched.  Correct?

The Romanov book was as well researched as the sources allowed.

When conducting any kind of research the best results are always achieved by interviewing, if possible, the individuals closest to the the subject of the research. That's only common sense. The McCanns were of course at the centre of this particular maelstrom so it would unarguably be a priority, if your book were to have any credibility to interview them in person.

Why this did not happen we can only guess at although I would be very surprised if Summers hadn't asked for the McCanns input.

[Alfred R Jones]

The Romanov book was as well researched as the sources allowed.

When conducting any kind of research the best results are always achieved by interviewing, if possible, the individuals closest to the the subject of the research. That's only common sense. The McCanns were of course at the centre of this particular maelstrom so it would unarguably be a priority, if your book were to have any credibility to interview them in person.

Why this did not happen we can only guess at although I would be very surprised if Summers hadn't asked for the McCanns input.

You really must make it your business to find out.  I suggest you e-mail Anthony asap, he might supply you with some material to fuel your McCann scepticism and disseminate online amongst your fellow sceptics.

[Benice]

You really must make it your business to find out.  I suggest you e-mail Anthony asap, he might supply you with some material to fuel your McCann scepcism and disseminate online amongst your fellow sceptics.

Even if it hasn't been done already, I'm sure it won't be long before some sceptics will be accusing the authors of being on the McCanns payroll.   Can you imagine the comments if the McCanns had been interviewed?   That would be irrefutable evidence to the [ censored word ]s that it was all a put up job - and the book was really written by the McCanns.