Summers & Swan - A new book - Looking For Madeleine

[Mr Gray]

No, it presents one side and one side only.

The abduction.

Nothing else there, but a money making exercise rapidly going down the book charts into oblivion.

because abduction is what happened...according to the authors...that's their opinion and they are entitled to it

[Alfred R Jones]

It does present the evidence fairly but contradicts everything you have believed for the past seven years. Coming from authors you previously respected it's very hard for you to take and it shows

My, does it ever!  This book seems to have upset Faithlilly more than anything else in the last seven years.  For her it seems personal - could it be because she somehow feels rebuffed  after her correspondence with the authors...?

[xtina]

because abduction is what happened...according to the authors...that's their opinion and they are entitled to it

so in that case....if that's your opinion ...all books wrote about maddie should be published......

either about abduction ...or non abduction ...but that isn't the case is it ....

[stephen25000]

because abduction is what happened...according to the authors...that's their opinion and they are entitled to it

Well they can all they wish, because it doesn't make it true.

and what is now clear, is that the book sales are extremely poor, which does indeed reflect on the contents and the authors.

[Alfred R Jones]

The same accusations were levelled at Amaral by you supporters. In which way were they more valid ?

Amaral's book showed contempt for the due process of law by publicly accusing two people who have never been found guilty of any crime.  His book was filled with errors and his theory was pants.  Now, perhaps you can list all the glaring errors, misinformation and lies  in the S & S book and demonstrate just how impossible are their conclusions.

[Alfred R Jones]

If it had been a balanced book which presented the evidence fairly it would, I'm sure, have sold in greater numbers. To say that is objective is disingenuous to say the least.

What has the book not included which makes it unbalanced, in your view?  Amaral was asked several times for an interview but politely declined - I wonder why....?

[stephen25000]

Amaral's book showed contempt for the due process of law by publicly accusing two people who have never been found guilty of any crime.  His book was filled with errors and his theory was pants.  Now, perhaps you can list all the glaring errors, misinformation and lies  in the S & S book and demonstrate just how impossible are their conclusions.

Now please show where the theory of accidental death has been disproved.

As to the mccanns, THEY AND ONLY THEY INITIATED THE EVENTS LEADING TO MADELEINE'S 'DISAPPEARANCE'.

[xtina]

My, does it ever!  This book seems to have upset Faithlilly more than anything else in the last seven years.  For her it seems personal - could it be because she somehow feels rebuffed  after her correspondence with the authors...?

Why are S&S so reluctant to present the whole truth about events? This sort of ........... should have no place in such a book.
 
Now we come to the McCann's and their friends working on a formal version of the timeline of the night of 3rd May. We are told that this was requested by the police:
 
"The police had said that those rough documents, written on the covers of a child's book, would not do. So it was four or five days later, that they worked on the chronology again."
 
This seems most peculiar. We were told earlier that a PJ officer was present when the first timelines on the book cover were written, although there is no evidence that was true. Now after the police have interviewed all of the tapas group and have asked them all for their version of events including times. Twice in the case of Gerry McCann, Jane Tanner and Russel O'Brien. They now require the most important witnesses to work together without a PJ officer present to produce a better version. That just didn't sound right to me so I decided to check.
 
Fortunately Kate McCann's own book provided a much more believable account of the reason the group drew up a new timeline document. Here is what Kate says:
 
"By Sunday evening," (presumably this is Sunday 13th May) we found ourselves giving our statements again, this time to a couple of detectives from Control Risks." (Kate had earlier explained that Control Risks was a company brought in by a shadowy character called Hugh {no surname, 'Just call me Hugh'}.) "We were concerned that parts of the statements we had made to the Portuguese police, especially on that first day, might have been lost in translation. We also felt that these accounts were not sufficiently thorough and wanted to have every detail we could remember registered properly."
 
So S&S have been .......... once more. The PJ had not requested that the group provide a more detailed timeline at all. I'm starting to wonder whether all this ........... reporting is deliberate or incompetent.

[Brietta]

Hmmm … it was heart rending and so well orchestrated … could they???” …  “what parent would???” … “ the last book touched by Baby Maddie” ... "what kind of people are they???" etcetera - etcetera - etcetera -

What an excellent foil that was to show the insensitivity in the propaganda war directed at Madeleine’s parents … that they just ripped Madeleine’s colouring book to shreds to write a timeline on it. 

Now the book has busted another myth … neither Madeleine McCann’s mother … or Madeleine McCann’s father were responsible for using the book.

It was actually Russell O’Brien.

No wonder the inhabitants of the myth factory are having apoplexy at the mere thought of S&S exposing their murky world.

[stephen25000]

Is it true as  on one  the Amazon reviews that S & S have claimed  the fund was a charity, when it is a private Ltd., company ?

[faithlilly]

It seems O'Brien was unaware of what he was writing on when compiling the timelines so it was certainly not him who tore the colouring book into pieces. So who was it ?

From his rogatory statement :

'the recollections of what happened there are relatively dim now, but the only ones I can really recall was, although it was prompted by what you showed me on Tuesday, was that we were writing on the back of a piece of card, I thought it was a cereal box but obviously it was a children’s book, a very kind of, very, very, draft idea of what happened in the hour and, erm, and what state the windows and the shutters had been in and I think I, that was, that was written with me sat at the table in Kate and Gerry’s room.'

So no myth busted but another example of how badly researched, or disingenuous, the book actually is.

[Brietta]

Is it true as  on one  the Amazon reviews that S & S have claimed  the fund was a charity, when it is a private Ltd., company ?

Why not purchase your own copy to find out what the authors are saying about lots and lots of things? One should really consider one's position if quoting from another person's review on Amazon ... it is my undersatnding some foolish people who have not read the book are writing reviews for some reason best known to themselves.

I find it best to make up my own mind on these things ... you should try it sometimes ... very liberating.   

[stephen25000]

Why not purchase your own copy to find out what the authors are saying about lots and lots of things? One should really consider one's position if quoting from another person's review on Amazon ... it is my undersatnding some foolish people who have not read the book are writing reviews for some reason best known to themselves.

I find it best to make up my own mind on these things ... you should try it sometimes ... very liberating.   

So is it true or not ?

Simple question, easily ANSWERED.

[Mr Gray]

Why are S&S so reluctant to present the whole truth about events? This sort of ......... should have no place in such a book.
 
Now we come to the McCann's and their friends working on a formal version of the timeline of the night of 3rd May. We are told that this was requested by the police:
 
"The police had said that those rough documents, written on the covers of a child's book, would not do. So it was four or five days later, that they worked on the chronology again."
 
This seems most peculiar. We were told earlier that a PJ officer was present when the first timelines on the book cover were written, although there is no evidence that was true. Now after the police have interviewed all of the tapas group and have asked them all for their version of events including times. Twice in the case of Gerry McCann, Jane Tanner and Russel O'Brien. They now require the most important witnesses to work together without a PJ officer present to produce a better version. That just didn't sound right to me so I decided to check.
 
Fortunately Kate McCann's own book provided a much more believable account of the reason the group drew up a new timeline document. Here is what Kate says:
 
"By Sunday evening," (presumably this is Sunday 13th May) we found ourselves giving our statements again, this time to a couple of detectives from Control Risks." (Kate had earlier explained that Control Risks was a company brought in by a shadowy character called Hugh {no surname, 'Just call me Hugh'}.) "We were concerned that parts of the statements we had made to the Portuguese police, especially on that first day, might have been lost in translation. We also felt that these accounts were not sufficiently thorough and wanted to have every detail we could remember registered properly."
 
So S&S have been ........... once more. The PJ had not requested that the group provide a more detailed timeline at all. I'm starting to wonder whether all this .......... reporting is deliberate or incompetent.

So here we have the mccanns showing that they were concerned about inaccurate translations of their initial statements

[Anna]

Since the type of crime has not been ascertained, then ALL THEORIES are speculation

 
I think youve got it Stephen