Summers & Swan - A new book - Looking For Madeleine

[Alfred R Jones]

Chapter 5. Page 59

The authors visited both small communities, and contacted local people who knew the area well. They and the head of a foundation that raises funds for orphanages, have said that no such "orphanage" existed."

Perhaps this will teach people not to criticise the book for being poorly researched before they actually read it!

[Wonderfulspam]

Perhaps this will teach people not to criticise the book for being poorly researched before they actually read it!

The book uses a debunked door.

Nuff said.

[stephen25000]

The book uses a debunked door.

Nuff said.

Yup.

One does get the impression that certain people will cling on to anything in the risible hope that Madeleine will magically be found and everything will be hunky-dory.

[faithlilly]

Perhaps this will teach people not to criticise the book for being poorly researched before they actually read it!

Then the authors should be more careful when choosing their words. Their use of the world 'apparently' certainly doesn't convey any absolute knowledge. Besides this sort of scam has been perpetrated on tourists since God was a boy. I'm not sure how it can be linked to Madeleine's alleged abduction.

[Alfred R Jones]

Then the authors should be more careful when choosing their words. Their use of the world 'apparently' certainly doesn't convey any absolute knowledge. Besides this sort of scam has been perpetrated on tourists since God was a boy. I'm not sure how it can be linked to Madeleine's alleged abduction.

Here's a novel idea - why don't you read the book before jumping to conclusions based on a sentence or two taken out of context?  Or perhaps you don't plan to read the book as you've already decided it's bound to be a pile of crap (judging from the concerted effort you've already made in trying to discredit it)?

[stephen25000]

Here's a novel idea - why don't you read the book before jumping to conclusions based on a sentence or two taken out of context?  Or perhaps you don't plan to read the book as you've already decided it's bound to be a pile of crap (judging from the concerted effort you've already made in trying to discredit it)?

Is that rather like you trying to discredit the accidental death theory, or placing forward the abduction theory as the only scenario, with FA evidence.

[Mr Gray]

Is that rather like you trying to discredit the accidental death theory, or placing forward the abduction theory as the only scenario, with FA evidence.

the question you can never answer is that why do you support the accident theory when there is no evidence for it

[Erngath]

Then the authors should be more careful when choosing their words. Their use of the world 'apparently' certainly doesn't convey any absolute knowledge. Besides this sort of scam has been perpetrated on tourists since God was a boy. I'm not sure how it can be linked to Madeleine's alleged abduction.

No, not at all. The word apparent was used before the authors had continued detailing their further investigation by visiting Portugal and speaking to local people. There are four pages of print between the word apparently and no such "orphanage" existed.

[Alfred R Jones]

I hear that a few of the more prominent "sceptics" get the Summers & Swan treatment...looking forward to reading all about them tomorrow!

[Alice Purjorick]

Merciful heavens my dears aren't we becoming a lot of little Divas. Snickers all round I think kiddies.
Faithlilly's posts could of course be described as risible were they all her own work so to speak. Posting reviews of Anthony Summers work by his contemporaries and professional critics would put them in a different light. Are we saying that those who reviewed the books and found them lightweight are all "f****ng t****rs". Had Summers previous books not been criticised for recurring similar apparent weaknesses, Pulitzer nomination not with standing (you pays yer money and sends yer book), one would perhaps be less wary.
I look forward to seeing threads on here entitled typically "Is Tom Mangold's LinkedIn Profile Accurate".
I found this quote from a review of Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History".
SNIP>>>>>>
But his arrogance is of little use in untangling the hopelessly conflicted facts in this 44-year old national tragedy. His incessantly hurling slurs such as "deranged conspiracy theorist," "crackpot," "con man," "kook," and "huckster" at virtually all critics inevitably carries a whiff of buffoonery and anxious self-promotion about it. And that’s particularly the case when he’s flat-out wrong on the facts.
SNIP >>>>

Now who does that remind you of folks?

[stephen25000]

the question you can never answer is that why do you support the accident theory when there is no evidence for it

There is but you choose to ignore it.

[Mr Gray]

There is but you choose to ignore it.

so where is it? 

[Montclair]

If Mr. Summers can interview someone who decided, after 15 seconds of watching the McCanns, that they were innocent, why didn't he also interview someone who decided, after seeing them on the first night, that they were hiding something and weren't innocent. It's the least he could do.

[Alfred R Jones]

If Mr. Summers can interview someone who decided, after 15 seconds of watching the McCanns, that they were innocent, why didn't he also interview someone who decided, after seeing them on the first night, that they were hiding something and weren't innocent. It's the least he could do.

How do you know he hasn't?  He contacted Pat Brown didn't he?

[Eleanor]

If Mr. Summers can interview someone who decided, after 15 seconds of watching the McCanns, that they were innocent, why didn't he also interview someone who decided, after seeing them on the first night, that they were hiding something and weren't innocent. It's the least he could do.

Why did Goncalo Amaral never interview or even meet The McCanns before he decided on that first morning that The McCanns were guilty?

Does that make sense to you?