Summers & Swan - A new book - Looking For Madeleine

[ferryman]

Are you running away so soon Sadie?  The dog alerts have not been proven one way or another, if remains are eventually found then those alerts will take on a whole new meaning.

Goncalo was correct to consider the McCanns as suspects, any detectives worth their salt would have done the same. His suspicions and the suspicions of those around him were brought about by the lies and half truths told by the tapas group.  Their stories were conflicting and evasive.

You are also completely wrong about the evidence but I suspect you mean proof.  Yes, there is no proof of involvement but similarly by the same token, there is no proof that they weren't involved. The perfect stalemate if you like.

Looks as if Mark Harrison is not worth his salt, then; nor the entire English judicial system, which does not admit dog alerts as "evidence" in court.

I'm fairly certain that even a Scottish judge (in Scotland, uncorroborated alerts are allowed as 'evidence') would have thrown out the alerts from canine activities in the (shelved) Madeleine investigation.

[stephen25000]

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?

Yes Angelo, Swan is full of her own self-importance.

They offer nothing knew.

Nomatter what they say, the mccanns are culpable for what they failed to do, i.e. ensure their children's safety.

As to the bull about someone watching the apartment.

it was a holiday area and people would be coming and going.

As to someone watching the 'targeted' apartment. 

So on that basis, anyone standing outside any residence must be stalking the place and about to abduct children, especially if they have a spotty face or swarthy appearance.

Give me a break.

[Mr Gray]

Yes Angelo, Swan is full of her own self-importance.

They offer nothing knew.

Nomatter what they say, the mccanns are culpable for what they failed to do, i.e. ensure their children's safety.

As to the bull about someone watching the apartment.

it was a holiday area and people would be coming and going.

As to someone watching the 'targeted' apartment. 

So on that basis, anyone standing outside any residence must be stalking the place and about to abduct children, especially if they have a spotty face or swarthy appearance.

Give me a break.

looks like the authors have reached the same conclusion as SY.....how can that be wide of the mark

[stephen25000]

Looks as if Mark Harrison is not worth his salt, then; nor the entire UK judicial system, which does not admit dog alerts as "evidence" in court.

I'm fairly certain that even a Scottish judge (in Scotland, uncorroborated alerts are allowed as 'evidence') would have thrown out the alerts from canine activities in the (shelved) Madeleine investigation.

ferryman.

Summers and Swan, just two amateurs, trying to line their pockets.

and of course they didn't 'liaise' with the mccanns.

So where is the scenario of accidental death dealt with ?

Now that would be naughty, wouldn't it ?

[stephen25000]

looks like the authors have reached the same conclusion as SY.....how can that be wide of the mark

So what have SY found ?

Easy answer.

F.A.

[Mr Gray]

So what have SY found ?

Easy answer.

F.A.

what did amaral find...what did the pj find

[stephen25000]

what did amaral find...what did the pj find

Not one indication or trace of an abductor.

[Mr Gray]

Not one indication or trace of an abductor.

lets see if SY can

[stephen25000]

lets see if SY can

They haven't and they won't.

[Alfred R Jones]

In your dreams Sadie. Goncalo is one of the very few people who know the case inside out.  Summer and Swan on the other hand are amateur sleuths who rely on second hand reports to facilitate their analysis.  They are so far of the mark it is laughable.  In fact you misrepresent events totally in that it was not Amaral alone who carried out the investigation but many others, British as well as Portuguese.  What you cannot do is confuse the official investigation with Amaral's personal views which are expressed in his book.

Have you read the book Angelo?

[stephen25000]

Have you read the book Angelo?

It is quite remarkable and also sad, when any new 'development' emerges, the mccann supporters start swinging for the proverbial chandeliers, until of course the cold light of dawn emerges,and they realize nothing changes.

Then comes the BLUSTER. %£&)**# %£&)**# %£&)**#

[ferryman]

ferryman.

Summers and Swan, just two amateurs, trying to line their pockets.

and of course they didn't 'liaise' with the mccanns.

So where is the scenario of accidental death dealt with ?

Now that would be naughty, wouldn't it ?

If only Summers and Swan had your professionalism, Stephen .....

[stephen25000]

If only Summers and Swan had your professionalism, Stephen .....

Indeed ferryman.

Then of course your expertise in dog handling is world renowned. Perhaps you should be giving lessons to Martin Grime. 

[Benice]

Are you running away so soon Sadie?  The dog alerts have not been proven one way or another, if remains are eventually found then those alerts will take on a whole new meaning.

Goncalo was correct to consider the McCanns as suspects, any detectives worth their salt would have done the same. His suspicions and the suspicions of those around him were brought about by the lies and half truths told by the tapas group.  Their stories were conflicting and evasive.

You are also completely wrong about the evidence but I suspect you mean proof.  Yes, there is no proof of involvement but similarly by the same token, there is no proof that they weren't involved. The perfect stalemate if you like.

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. 

[ferryman]

In your dreams Sadie. Goncalo is one of the very few people who know the case inside out.  Summer and Swan on the other hand are amateur sleuths who rely on second hand reports to facilitate their analysis.  They are so far of the mark it is laughable.  In fact you misrepresent events totally in that it was not Amaral alone who carried out the investigation but many others, British as well as Portuguese.  What you cannot do is confuse the official investigation with Amaral's personal views which are expressed in his book.

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?