Discussion of points raised in Danny Collins' book Vanished ...

[barrier]

Looking at that synopsis NO.  but this bit could be new "During his investigations, Collins was told by Iberian travellers that if Madeleine had been found on the street it was likely she would have been taken and a plan hatched to extract a ransom or reward.

But then, given the immediate high-profile nature of the case, they might have sold her to Romany gypsies.

Collins thinks this is the “most logical conclusion”."

Its a possible theory along with others but sadly because of the high profile nature at the time another ending is a possibility, which we know Rowley can't confirm either way.

[barrier]

You got that wrong.  Danny Collins says they can only be raised from inside the apartment.

So he does,well the P Mac vid  certainly dispels that.

[Robittybob1]

Its a possible theory along with others but sadly because of the high profile nature at the time another ending is a possibility, which we know Rowley can't confirm either way.

But even if we use the general theme of that possibility, in that whatever reason someone took Madeleine their plans were altered by the high profile nature of the case, I'd be happy with that.  But not to blame a class of people without any proof in the general case.

[Robittybob1]

I had trouble reading this book to begin with because of the excessive factual errors but later when I read that Summers and Swan had read Danny's book I forced myself to read it.  Has anyone else read it ad what comments can you make?

There are about 20 places where I question points he raises, these are over about the 15 odd places where he has a different idea of the basic facts of the case.

"20 places where I question points he raises"  well we've debunked one at least only 19 more to go.
"the 15 odd places where he has a different idea of the basic facts of the case"
1.  The McCann building sandcastles on the beach with Madeleine on the 3rd. - Wrong; Madeleine went sailing with the Kids group.
2. Matthew and Rachael had "two daughters"  -  wrong; they only had one child.
3.  "Madeleine's birthday was 2 days after she disappeared" - wrong; it was 9 days.
4. All the things he says about Jose Baptista don't match Jose statement.
5.  Saying that Jane and Russell arrive at the dinner at the same time.  Wrong; Jane says she arrives alone and first.
6.  He has Russell in apartment 5B when in fact it was the Oldfield family there.
7. He has the Payne family in an apartment along the ground floor of the apartment block not on the second story.
8.  He has Matthew making a statement that he checked the kids at 9:45 PM not the 9:30 PM as we now have it. 
9.  He has Pennington doing child minding in a nearby apartment.  Not at the drop in creche as per her own words.
Those 9 were all in the Prologue.
10.  On page 51 he has the McCanns staying in apartment 5A for many days after the disappearance.
11.  On page 76 he gets Eddie confused with Ernie.  or was there another dog called Ernie?
12.  On page 116 he has Gerry turning left into the walkway behind the apartments???
13 on page 118 he has the quiz night as Thursday night.  Wrong it was on Sunday and Tuesday nights.
14 On page 212 he is confused as to where the Smith sightings were.  He makes out it was on Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins.

OK 14 not the 15 I estimated.

In Chapter 7 he makes a profound remark  "The day after Madeleine McCann's disappearance was a Friday".

[John]

"20 places where I question points he raises"  well we've debunked one at least only 19 more to go.
"the 15 odd places where he has a different idea of the basic facts of the case"
1.  The McCann building sandcastles on the beach with Madeleine on the 3rd. - Wrong; Madeleine went sailing with the Kids group.
2. Matthew and Rachael had "two daughters"  -  wrong; they only had one child.
3.  "Madeleine's birthday was 2 days after she disappeared" - wrong; it was 9 days.
4. All the things he says about Jose Baptista don't match Jose statement.
5.  Saying that Jane and Russell arrive at the dinner at the same time.  Wrong; Jane says she arrives alone and first.
6.  He has Russell in apartment 5B when in fact it was the Oldfield family there.
7. He has the Payne family in an apartment along the ground floor of the apartment block not on the second story.
8.  He has Matthew making a statement that he checked the kids at 9:45 PM not the 9:30 PM as we now have it. 
9.  He has Pennington doing child minding in a nearby apartment.  Not at the drop in creche as per her own words.
Those 9 were all in the Prologue.
10.  On page 51 he has the McCanns staying in apartment 5A for many days after the disappearance.
11.  On page he gets Eddie confused with Ernie.  or was there another dog called Ernie?
12.  On page 116 he has Gerry turning left into the walkway behind the apartments???
13 on page 118 he has the quiz night as Thursday night.  Wrong it was on Sunday and Tuesday nights.
14 On page 212 he is confused as to where the Smith sightings were.  He makes out it was on Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins.

OK 14 not the 15 I estimated.

In Chapter 7 he makes a profound remark  "The day after Madeleine McCann's disappearance was a Friday".

Good work Rob finding those errors.  That is the main reason why I don't pay too much heed to these books, they just don't reflect many of the facts accurately which renders them somewhat benign when it comes to proper investigation analysis.  There is only one way for a new reader to get a grasp of the real fact in this case and that is to wade through the files.

[Robittybob1]

Good work Rob finding those errors.  That is the main reason why I don't pay too much heed to these books, they just don't reflect many of the facts accurately which renders them somewhat benign when it comes to proper investigation analysis.  There is only one way for a new reader to get a grasp of the real fact in this case and that is to wade through the files.

None of these minor errors affect the outcome majorly.  But it just shows me how difficult it must have been for people to get the full story in the early days before the files were released.

[Angelo222]

None of these minor errors affect the outcome majorly.  But it just shows me how difficult it must have been for people to get the full story in the early days before the files were released.

I don't believe we have had the full story and that is why I want SY and the PJ to widen the scope of their investigation to include what went on after the disappearance.

[Robittybob1]

I don't believe we have had the full story and that is why I want SY and the PJ to widen the scope of their investigation to include what went on after the disappearance.

Danny Collins includes another case at the end of his book that highlights some of the trouble the British had in accepting what the Portuguese PJ etc had done. A certain Michael Cook was arrested and convicted of a girl's murder, "Extract from Hansard, House of Commons debate".  It would be a highly provocative move for the SY to investigate what the PJ and the prosecutors had done.

The only reason he could have included the Hansard of this event is to insinuate indirectly that the Portuguese authorities messed up.   

[Robittybob1]

On page 3 Chapter 1 "First Report"  he discusses whether the front door was possible exit route.  It appears as a possible yet throughout the book the consequences of exiting via the front door are not discussed.

[Robittybob1]

I defy anyone to understand the dynamics of his version of the Jane, Jez, Gerry meeting.  Page 5.

[Robittybob1]

On page 9 Chapter one he makes out that Matt could see the twins "by the light of the opened shutter".  Is that so?

The 10th May statement suggest s the blinds were raised yet on his first check the blinds were lowered.  Yet he accepts this as being all OK!  "Consequently, he admits the possibility of the light he was perceiving was owing to the blinds being raised, denying however that he was capable of assessing the height at which it may have been.

The question asked, he was sure that, at the time of his first being in the vicinity of MBM's bedroom, reported as 21h05 in the course of which he had approached the the window of that bedroom from the outside for the purpose of an auditory check, the blinds were, in his view, fully closed.

Consequently, he is convinced that at the time of the second check the blinds were more open than on the first check, given that he considers that the light inside the bedroom, undoubtedly coming from the outside, could not have been coming through it [the blinds] if they had been fully closed."

[Brietta]

None of these minor errors affect the outcome majorly.  But it just shows me how difficult it must have been for people to get the full story in the early days before the files were released.

He is an investigative journalist who worked in Spain and who continues to live there.  What exactly did his 'investigation' into Madeleine's disappearance lend to the sum total of knowledge about her case?
I would imagine, not a lot.

What about Spanish connections?
Snip
Police arrested 13 suspects as a result of the investigation by investigators from the Barcelona-based Metodo-3 agency, who had been hired by Gerry and Kate McCann to trace their daughter Madeleine, said the report.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-01-20/missing-maddie-investigators-uncover-paedophile/270888

Spanish journalist Antonio Toscano contributed information about a couple and an extortion attempt with a truly international flavour about it.
The PJ discounted his narrative.
An Italian man who was under a European Arrest Warrant issued by France in respect to threat to a judge.  The Italian was also guilty of mistreating his daughter.
His Portuguese partner also had an Italian criminal record and was suspected of belonging to an illegal child adoption network.

I think there is enough meat on the bones of that and no doubt other investigations we know nothing about to research and write a book ... but why bother ... a case involving French - Italian - Spanish and Portuguese police cannot be near as interesting as speculating which door Madeleine walked through.


Meanwhile in the real world ...
Snip
The arrests came on the eve of an announcement by Scotland Yard it has opened a formal investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
British police have formally asked the Crown Prosecution Service to submit an international letter of request to Portuguese authorities for assistance in obtaining evidence relating to their inquiries.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356762/Millionaire-child-abuser-girlfriend-accused-trying-extort-2-5m-missing-Madeleine-McCanns-parents-arrested-Portugal-hideout.html#ixzz4oaU0yZAu

[Robittybob1]

On page 11 Danny Collins writes that the GNR claim they weren't called till 11:50 PM L. Costa Cabral???  I'm sure that must have been a typo in someone's statement where he meant 10:50 PM.
Costa Cabral doesn't make a statement so I don't know where that information came from.   I don't see Danny's point of quoting such an obvious error.

[Robittybob1]

Now we are just into Chapter 2 "Looking for Zebras"   page 13 he mentions a night security guard manning the secondary reception entrance.  I never seen anyone mention that the reception entrance was controlled  nor a statement from that guard.  Has anyone got an insight on that task?

[Robittybob1]

To Danny's credit he does raise a good point in Chapter 12 "Blood and Fluids" page 96, where he points out that there were  no enquires into who had rented the Renault Scenic prior to the McCanns hiring it.  I would imagine that was done but was it?