Summers & Swan - A new book - Looking For Madeleine

[stephen25000]

I haven't read the book so I can't comment on its thoroughness.  I do know however that it is possible to write a very well researched book on a subject without actually speaking to every single person involved.  This book is about Madeleine's disappearance, not the McCanns per se. Using your logic, none of you armchair sleuths have anything worthwhile to say on the subject either, seeing as how none of you has interviewed the McCanns personally, to the best of my knowledge.

On that basis, anything you type is completely irrelevant and a waste of space.

P.S. Do you really imagine the mccanns would allow anyone to ask them open questions on Madeleine's disappearance, bar under oath  in a court of law ?

[Alfred R Jones]

I have no idea if they were wrong.

What I do know however is that even though Summers conducted extensive research for his book the File on the Tsar his conclusions couldn't have been more wrong and there is always the chance he is wrong here too.

Seriously?  You think 9/11 could possibly have been engineered by the US Govt and the Israelis?  Well then, say no more. 

[stephen25000]

Seriously?  You think 9/11 could possibly have been engineered by the US Govt and the Israelis?  Well then, say no more.

Actually perhaps their next book should be on the theme of mccann supporters who believe Madeleine is the second coming, and one in particular who thinks he's related to Jesus.

Now that would be a best seller. *&*%£

[pegasus]

"Had there been a warning note in the apartment, do we think the McCanns would have left the patio door unlocked on the night they went to the other side of the pool to have dinner away from their children?  One would be tempted to think they would make sure everything was firmly locked up."

So is this how the warning notice should have read?
"Warning: when leaving infants alone in apartment please ensure that all windows and doors are locked."

[faithlilly]

I haven't read the book so I can't comment on its thoroughness.  I do know however that it is possible to write a very well researched book on a subject without actually speaking to every single person involved.  This book is about Madeleine's disappearance, not the McCanns per se. Using your logic, none of you armchair sleuths have anything worthwhile to say on the subject either, seeing as how none of you has interviewed the McCanns personally, to the best of my knowledge.

That must be the most ridiculous posts I have ever seen you write Alfred.

How can a book be well researched when the main players have not been interviewed by the author ?

BTW I may have not interviewed the McCanns but I am also not claiming that my book is the most definitive account to date  of the case.

[faithlilly]

Seriously?  You think 9/11 could possibly have been engineered by the US Govt and the Israelis?  Well then, say no more.

I don't know enough about the subject to hazard a guess so made no comment about the book's conclusions.

[Alfred R Jones]

That must be the most ridiculous pits I have ever seen you write Alfrad.

How can a book be well researched when the main players have not been interviewed by the author ?

BTW I may have not interviewed the McCanns but I am also not claiming that my book is the most definitive account to date  of the case.

In which case, by your logic there are literally NO well researched books about any historical subject you care to mention, all rubbish.  Summers and Swann's book about 9/11 failed to interview Osama Bin Laden so how can we take it seriously, eh?  Did they interview George Bush or Ariel Sharon?  No?  Well then,  we may dismiss it as poorly researched, right?

[Mr Gray]

I have no idea if they were wrong.

What I do know however is that even though Summers conducted extensive research for his book the File on the Tsar his conclusions couldn't have been more wrong and there is always the chance he is wrong here too.

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

[faithlilly]

In which case, by your logic there are literally NO well researched books about any historical subject you care to mention, all rubbish.  Summers and Swann's book about 9/11 failed to interview Osama Bin Laden so how can we take it seriously, eh?  Did they interview George Bush or Ariel Sharon?  No?  Well then,  we may dismiss it as poorly researched, right?

And how much access did Summers have to Bin Laden, Bush et al ? None I'd hazard a guess.

Did the author request  an interview with the McCanns and if not, why not and if so why did the McCanns not agree ?

[faithlilly]

You must be extremely ignorant then, especially if you think it comes down to guesswork when deciding what happened on 9/11.

I don't think it comes down to guesswork and that is why I'm not guessing.

[Alfred R Jones]

Anyway, Faithlilly has made her position clear - the people who are in the best position to have the complete picture on this case are those with FULL access to ALL the protagonists.  And the ONLY people who have that currently are the Met.  And what do they think?  Oh yes, read my signature line if you've forgotten...

[stephen25000]

Interesting.

On Amazon the price of this 'objective account' has been slashed from £18.99 to £10.

Must be a fantastic book then.

[Alfred R Jones]

And how much access did Summers have to Bin Laden, Bush et al ? None I'd hazard a guess.

Did the author request  an interview with the McCanns and if not, why not and if so why did the McCanns not agree ?

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

[stephen25000]

Anyway, Faithlilly has made her position clear - the people who are in the best position to have the complete picture on this case are those with FULL access to ALL the protagonists.  And the ONLY people who have that currently are the Met.  And what do they think?  Oh yes, read my signature line if you've forgotten...

and they have found, ah yes.

F.A.

[faithlilly]

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

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