Summers & Swan - A new book - Looking For Madeleine

[stephen25000]

And IMO any Lead detective worth his salt would have made a point of interviewing the people he suspected of being the perpetrators himself - as a matter of course.    Surely in his position he would WANT to make his own assessment of the McCanns right at the beginning of the case?   

As it turned out -  all his decisions, opinions and conclusions about them were based on secondhand information.

IMO Not only unprofessional but totally incomprehensible  - and a decision which he carefully hides from his readers in his own book.

A brief reminder for the umpteenth time.

The nature of Madeleine's disappearance has yet to be ascertained.

So all possibilities should be fully investigated, and not just one.

[stephen25000]

Amaral doesn't even appear to know basic procedures of Portuguese policing, such as that witness statements are taken individually, not collectively.

What other explanation is there of his claim that the Gaspars gave a "joint" statement?

Here speaketh the expert in everything. 

 &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+

[ferryman]

A brief reminder for the umpteenth time.

The nature of Madeleine's disappearance has yet to be ascertained.

So all possibilities should be fully investigated, and not just one.

The only possibility you are interested in has been fully investigated and dismissed.

[stephen25000]

Just for starters........................

' May 3, between 11.30pm and 12.00midnight - Policia Judiciara [Portuguese National Police Force = PJ] arrive.

May 4 - Clarence Mitchell, the then Head of the 40-strong Central Office of Information Media Monitoring Unit, at the heart of the government’s ‘spin machine’, is appointed by the government to control publicity on the McCann case. He flies out to Praia da Luz later in May. Before doing so, he boasts in a TV interview that it was he who spoke to Archbishop Cormac Murphy O’Connor and got him to arrange an audience for the McCanns with the Pope in Rome.

May 4, 4am - PJ ask McCanns to vacate Apartment 5A. Mark Warners move them to a different location in the Ocean Club. The crime scene in Apartment 5A is sealed and examined later that morning.

May 4 - Sniffer dogs are brought in, the Spanish and border police and airports are notified. Volunteer teams comb the village, resort and beach for clues. Already, the McCanns begin to accuse the Portuguese police of ‘not doing enough’ to find Madeleine. In the evening, the McCanns make an emotional plea, speaking of their ‘anguish and despair’.

May 4 - Alex Woolfall, Head of Crisis Management at Bell Pottinger, one of the nation's top media and public relations firms, flies out to Praia da Luz, and spends much time advising the McCanns

May 5 - David Hopkins, Managing Director of Mark Warners, flies out to help, together with the Director (Alan Pike) and another member (Martin Alderton) of the Skipton-based Centre for Crisis Psychology (CCP), both appointed by Mark Warners and presumably paid by them. The Skipton Herald reports that “Mr Alderton has counselled those affected by major disasters across the country”, while a spokesman for Mark Warner said: ‘The Centre for Crisis Psychology (CCP) came highly recommended by industry partners and have been known to us for some time. Their experience in dealing with a variety of incidents is second to none’.

May 5 - At least three police officers from Leicestershire Police fly out to praia da Luz, including Detective Superintendent Bob Small, who spoke to Jane Tanner on 13 May shortly before she adamantly identified Robert Murat as the abductor she''d seen 10 days earlier (see below)

Between May 5 and 12 - Two top people from Control Risks Group (CRG) are dispatched to Praia da Luz, Kenneth Farrow and Michael Keenan. Mr Farrow is the ex-head of the Economic Crime Unit in the City of London Police and Mr Keenan an ex-Superintendent from the Metropolitan Police with specialist fraud and investigative experience. No-one knows how they can help find a missing child, but Jane Tanner admits to speaking to them before she identified Robert Murat as the man with a child she claimed to have seen on 3 May. It is uncertain who promised to pay for them to come out; it could have been the government, or Brian Kennedy. Jane Tanner referred to them as ‘the people Kate and Gerry brought in’.

Also during this time Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff were sent out to Praia da Luz, including Sheree Dodd, who soon returned to London amid reports that she did not accept the McCanns’ claims that Madeleine had been abducted. '

[Benice]

Just for starters........................

' May 3, between 11.30pm and 12.00midnight - Policia Judiciara [Portuguese National Police Force = PJ] arrive.

May 4 - Clarence Mitchell, the then Head of the 40-strong Central Office of Information Media Monitoring Unit, at the heart of the government’s ‘spin machine’, is appointed by the government to control publicity on the McCann case. He flies out to Praia da Luz later in May. Before doing so, he boasts in a TV interview that it was he who spoke to Archbishop Cormac Murphy O’Connor and got him to arrange an audience for the McCanns with the Pope in Rome.

May 4, 4am - PJ ask McCanns to vacate Apartment 5A. Mark Warners move them to a different location in the Ocean Club. The crime scene in Apartment 5A is sealed and examined later that morning.

May 4 - Sniffer dogs are brought in, the Spanish and border police and airports are notified. Volunteer teams comb the village, resort and beach for clues. Already, the McCanns begin to accuse the Portuguese police of ‘not doing enough’ to find Madeleine. In the evening, the McCanns make an emotional plea, speaking of their ‘anguish and despair’.

May 4 - Alex Woolfall, Head of Crisis Management at Bell Pottinger, one of the nation's top media and public relations firms, flies out to Praia da Luz, and spends much time advising the McCanns

May 5 - David Hopkins, Managing Director of Mark Warners, flies out to help, together with the Director (Alan Pike) and another member (Martin Alderton) of the Skipton-based Centre for Crisis Psychology (CCP), both appointed by Mark Warners and presumably paid by them. The Skipton Herald reports that “Mr Alderton has counselled those affected by major disasters across the country”, while a spokesman for Mark Warner said: ‘The Centre for Crisis Psychology (CCP) came highly recommended by industry partners and have been known to us for some time. Their experience in dealing with a variety of incidents is second to none’.

May 5 - At least three police officers from Leicestershire Police fly out to praia da Luz, including Detective Superintendent Bob Small, who spoke to Jane Tanner on 13 May shortly before she adamantly identified Robert Murat as the abductor she''d seen 10 days earlier (see below)

Between May 5 and 12 - Two top people from Control Risks Group (CRG) are dispatched to Praia da Luz, Kenneth Farrow and Michael Keenan. Mr Farrow is the ex-head of the Economic Crime Unit in the City of London Police and Mr Keenan an ex-Superintendent from the Metropolitan Police with specialist fraud and investigative experience. No-one knows how they can help find a missing child, but Jane Tanner admits to speaking to them before she identified Robert Murat as the man with a child she claimed to have seen on 3 May. It is uncertain who promised to pay for them to come out; it could have been the government, or Brian Kennedy. Jane Tanner referred to them as ‘the people Kate and Gerry brought in’.

Also during this time Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff were sent out to Praia da Luz, including Sheree Dodd, who soon returned to London amid reports that she did not accept the McCanns’ claims that Madeleine had been abducted. '

So can you point out please -  where the author gives the reasons why SY and the UK government have set out to deliberately con - not only the UK public - but also the rest of the world into believing the McCanns are innocent - if they know they are guilty?  That was my question to you.

[Brietta]

No [ censored word ]s brietta.

That remains the hallmark of mccann supporters.

The book from what snippets I've been given, is the work of amateurs, merely recapping already known information.

As to SY, they have found NOTHING.

and if you believe otherwise, then you are in cloud cuckoo land.

P.S.  A lot of people work hard brietta, and we've heard that  one before about the mccanns.

Yet another sob story and extremely BORING.

One might almost think you have a direct link to them.

Hmmm … no ‘[ censored word ]s’? yet you imply I might ‘have a direct link to them’ which is mega [ censored word ]ing always dragged out of the toolbox as a last resort.

Doesn’t discredit me, rather goes to show you have nothing to counter with, nothing new there then.

No one implied that Summers and Swann are anything other than writers collating information on what until very recently was a closed case. 

IYO they may well be ‘amateurs’ in their field, certainly not in mine; but let’s face the truth though, if the ‘professionals’ in their field had carried out a thorough systematic investigation at the time, there would not have been literally hundreds of un-investigated threads left hanging in the air enabling the PJ and the Met to justify reopening Madeleine’s case.

The very professional writers have pulled quite a few threads together and will give fresh understanding to those who do not have an in depth knowledge of the acknowledged failures in Madeleine’s case.

Unfortunately you are unashamedly perpetrating the mistakes of the past. 

You haven’t bothered to read the book but you insist on having an uniformed opinion on it. 

Instead you have chosen to rely on ‘snippets’ which you have been given. 

Therein lies the genesis of much of the misinformation and myths permeating the internet … snippets impressionable people have been given.

[Alice Purjorick]

Robbyn Swan is just full of it isn't she?

Sorry lovey but Gonçalo beat you to it.

So what did happen to Madeleine?  Did Summers and Swan answer their own promotional boast?

Well according to that interview they put forward "what might have happened to Madeleine that night".
Might in this context is merely expressing a possibility or if you like speculating.
But in fairness to them they did say in the book that the archiving report was critical of the McCanns but, understandably, without giving detail (Chapter 14).

[stephen25000]

Hmmm … no ‘[ censored word ]s’? yet you imply I might ‘have a direct link to them’ which is mega [ censored word ]ing always dragged out of the toolbox as a last resort.

Doesn’t discredit me, rather goes to show you have nothing to counter with, nothing new there then.

No one implied that Summers and Swann are anything other than writers collating information on what until very recently was a closed case. 

IYO they may well be ‘amateurs’ in their field, certainly not in mine; but let’s face the truth though, if the ‘professionals’ in their field had carried out a thorough systematic investigation at the time, there would not have been literally hundreds of un-investigated threads left hanging in the air enabling the PJ and the Met to justify reopening Madeleine’s case.

The very professional writers have pulled quite a few threads together and will give fresh understanding to those who do not have an in depth knowledge of the acknowledged failures in Madeleine’s case.

Unfortunately you are unashamedly perpetrating the mistakes of the past. 

You haven’t bothered to read the book but you insist on having an uniformed opinion on it. 

Instead you have chosen to rely on ‘snippets’ which you have been given. 

Therein lies the genesis of much of the misinformation and myths permeating the internet … snippets impressionable people have been given.

Now brietta.

Will the book solve Madeleine's disappearance, NO.

Will it make the authors money, YES.

Has it added anything new to the 'investigation', NO.

Have SY found anything, NO.

Acknowledged failures brietta....

Well UK police forces are unfortunately well known for that as well, aren't they ?

How many 'perfect' police investigations are there ?

and as to the mccanns, are they PERFECT PARENTS ?  &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+

[Brietta]

Now brietta.

Will the book solve Madeleine's disappearance, NO.

Will it make the authors money, YES.

Has it added anything new to the 'investigation', NO.

Have SY found anything, NO.

Acknowledged failures brietta....

Well UK police forces are unfortunately well known for that as well, aren't they ?

How many 'perfect' police investigations are there ?

and as to the mccanns, are they PERFECT PARENTS ?  &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+

Thank you for that highly revealing dialogue, Stephen. 

One can immediately see precisely why properly researched and collated information contained within the pages of “Looking for Madeleine” would be of absolutely no interest to you and why you do not bother to read it.

I doubt if the book was written with the expectation of being the instrument to “solve Madeleine’s disappearance”. 

It does throw some light on those who hold opinions such as yours who harp on about the Drs McCann’s parenting skills and denigrate Operation Grange while lauding the rather questionable conduct of those who were in charge of and botched the original investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.

Now as to money; you seem to imply there is something questionable about authors expecting to “make money” from two years of factual research which has enabled them to write a book which clarifies many erroneous suppositions.

Initially Summers and Swann didn’t know what their research was going to uncover and it was six of one half a dozen of the other to them, just as long as the book sales took off. 


That they have arrived at a conclusion which exonerates Madeleine’s parents is indicative that as a result of competent research they believe the evidence points to that.

One wonders why you have absolutely no criticism of Dr Amaral’s book. 

It was certainly written to “make money” for the author. 

Unlike Summers and Swan, Dr Amaral’s book was not an unbiased research vehicle but was written with particular self seeking agendas to the fore.

Why the omission to castigate Dr Amaral’s money making venture, Stephen? 

Please be consistent in your attacks on authors and don’t criticise one while eulogising another for “making money” out of the case of a missing little girl.

[stephen25000]

Thank you for that highly revealing dialogue, Stephen. 

One can immediately see precisely why properly researched and collated information contained within the pages of “Looking for Madeleine” would be of absolutely no interest to you and why you do not bother to read it.

I doubt if the book was written with the expectation of being the instrument to “solve Madeleine’s disappearance”. 

It does throw some light on those who hold opinions such as yours who harp on about the Drs McCann’s parenting skills and denigrate Operation Grange while lauding the rather questionable conduct of those who were in charge of and botched the original investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.

Now as to money; you seem to imply there is something questionable about authors expecting to “make money” from two years of factual research which has enabled them to write a book which clarifies many erroneous suppositions.

Initially Summers and Swann didn’t know what their research was going to uncover and it was six of one half a dozen of the other to them, just as long as the book sales took off. 


That they have arrived at a conclusion which exonerates Madeleine’s parents is indicative that as a result of competent research they believe the evidence points to that.

One wonders why you have absolutely no criticism of Dr Amaral’s book. 

It was certainly written to “make money” for the author. 

Unlike Summers and Swan, Dr Amaral’s book was not an unbiased research vehicle but was written with particular self seeking agendas to the fore.

Why the omission to castigate Dr Amaral’s money making venture, Stephen? 

Please be consistent in your attacks on authors and don’t criticise one while eulogising another for “making money” out of the case of a missing little girl.

Where did they investigate the accidental death theory ?

If you had done your research properly,  I have already said no one should profit from this case.

So you got that wrong as well.

Botched investigation brietta ?

In whose view ?

Yours does not count. Your not important enough.

Madeleine's parents parenting skills are in question.

Their arrogant stupidity led to the events of Madeleine's disappearance.

To deny that itself is simply unbelievable, unless you have a vested interest in defending the mccanns.

 %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#

[Alice Purjorick]

it describes the deployment of the dogs...stresses no evidential reliability as the results were not confirmed by forensics...basically says what I have been saying these last few years. it also says Amararal misrepresented the dogs alerts by where he claims the alerts confirmed the previous presence of a cadaver

The first page of chapter 14 deals with this.
Snip>>>>>
"... grew out of a perhaps understandable Portuguese misinterpretation of a poorly worded-but key-forensic finding in a preliminary email from the FSS"
Snip>>>>
No mention of Dr Amaral in this context. He is mentioned several pages later in the context of his removal from the case.
The curious thing about the dogs is that they list Marcia Koenig and Andy Rebmann in their references and suggest they were interviewed. These people along with Dr Debra Komar are among the worlds leading experts on so called cadaver dogs. There appears to be no referenced quote as to what their opinion my have been. Quoted are what appear to be comments made by nameless gash hands.

[Angelo222]

Amaral got it wrong. He misunderstood the evidence. Summers and Swann explain where he was wrong and they come to the same conclusion as SY...that's what upsets some posters

How do you know that Gonc misinterpreted the dog alerts?  Nobody knows at this point in time what the dogs alerted to and that includes S&S.

[ferryman]

The first page of chapter 14 deals with this.
Snip>>>>>
"... grew out of a perhaps understandable Portuguese misinterpretation of a poorly worded-but key-forensic finding in a preliminary email from the FSS"
Snip>>>>
No mention of Dr Amaral in this context. He is mentioned several pages later in the context of his removal from the case.
The curious thing about the dogs is that they list Marcia Koenig and Andy Rebmann in their references and suggest they were interviewed. These people along with Dr Debra Komar are among the worlds leading experts on so called cadaver dogs. There appears to be no referenced quote as to what their opinion my have been. Quoted are what appear to be comments made by nameless gash hands.

Depends.

If the authors invited Komar and Rebmann to comment on Grime's handling of his dog in PdL, or on the "Enhanced" victim Recovery dog status, I can understand why the authors might have been a little reticent about including their remarks ...

[xtina]

Let's be fair.... what would one expect a professional writer to do..... write a book to be carter-rucked or write a book for mega bucks......

Everyone knows by now .... writers and media alike ..... that they are not allowed to say anything against the mccs so called official version of events or else! That is a crime of lésé majesté

[ferryman]

Let's be fair.... what would one expect a professional writer to do..... write a book to be carter-rucked or write a book for mega bucks......

Everyone knows by now .... writers and media alike ..... that they are not allowed to say anything against the mccs so called official version of events or else! That is a crime of lésé majesté

If a professional author thought there was a story to be told that couldn't be told for legal reasons, they wouldn't write the book.