Summers & Swan - A new book - Looking For Madeleine

[Alfred R Jones]

If S&S had included every debunked myth and delusion in their book I think it would have required at least a further four or five volumes ... and that is a conservative estimate.

Yup - there are definitive accounts of WWII that are more succinct than the book the Sceptics imagine the world is waiting for.

[stephen25000]

Please provide evidence of your assertion that the McCanns fully co-operated with S&S in the writing of their book.

The mccanns met S and S.

FACT.

The book would have  been checked for 'libel'.

[Benice]

They have already been discussed numerous times.

Meanwhile,I presume you know how to look for charts of book sales ?

[/b]

No I don't know Stephen  - which is why I'm asking for clarification as you do seem to know.     Are you talking about Amazon 's charts?  If so do they only count books purchased from Amazon in their charts?   What about books sold in other outlets?      It's a genuine question.

[faithlilly]

This would be an account of interest only to complete McCann obsessives.  "Wallet stolen, returned" - I mean, get a grip FGS.  Why not include "smiles outside church", "money box that looks like an urn on the mantelpiece", and "lichen on the windowsill" while you're at it?

And the omissions detailed description of Payne's visit ? As he was the last person to have claimed to see Madeleine alive outwith the family I would have thought a detailed description of this would be crucial in a 'definitive' account.

Though perhaps it's been left out for the same reason Payne's name or his visit wasn't mentioned in the Crimewatch programme which may, who knows, tie in with a newspaper article sometime ago about a couple of the McCanns' friends wishing to change their statements.

All will become clear in time I suppose !

[Alfred R Jones]

And the omissions detailed description of Payne's visit ? As he was the last person to have claimed to see Madeleine alive outwith the family I would have thought a detailed description of this would be crucial in a 'definitive' account.

Though perhaps it's been left out for the same reason Payne's name or his visit wasn't mentioned in the Crimewatch programme which may, who knows, tie in with a newspaper article sometime ago about a couple of the McCanns' friends wishing to change their statements.

All will become clear in time I suppose !

The problem is Faithlilly, you have become so mired in this case over the years you see huge significance in every detail, and nefarious motives where none exist.  You should rest your brain, take a break from the case for a year or two, allow common sense and perspective to return and then you might see things more clearly. 

Just trying to be helpful. 

[Benice]

The mccanns met S and S.

FACT.

The book would have  been checked for 'libel'.

Can you point out where in this quote from Portugal Newswatch - that S&S claim that the McCanns co-operated fully in the writing of their book - as they quite clearly state the opposite.   

quote.

“We had a single meeting with the McCanns and one with the Met – both of them early in our research. The parents, and then the police, made only one request of us – a fair one given the parents’ hope and the Met’s working thesis that Madeleine may still be alive –  that we do nothing that might hinder or interfere with the ongoing investigation. We have been careful to abide by that request.”

How much cooperation did they get from Kate and Gerry McCann during their research and writing?

 “We have been totally independent of the McCanns – and we emphasise this, given the torrent of internet innuendo to the contrary even before Looking for Madeleine was published.

“An initial meeting aside, a meeting at which Madeleine’s parents made no attempt at all to influence our thinking, there was no cooperation. The parents believed we should work independently of them, and we would not have wanted it otherwise.”
Unquote

Are you saying S&S lied Stephen?  Please clarify.

[faithlilly]

The problem is Faithlilly, you have become so mired in this case over the years you see huge significance in every detail, and nefarious motives where none exist.  You should rest your brain, take a break from the case for a year or two, allow common sense and perspective to return and then you might see things more clearly. 

Just trying to be helpful. 

So you have no explanation for it either.

Fair enough.

[Alfred R Jones]

So you have no explanation for it either.

Fair enough.

Why should I seek to justify S & S's decisions about what to put in and leave out of their book?  As nothing out of the ordinary was reported by Payne when he visited Kate briefly that evening and as the book makes it very clear the authors having studied the case files don't believe Kate had anything to do with the disappearance, why do you think they should have included it?

[Carana]

And the omissions detailed description of Payne's visit ? As he was the last person to have claimed to see Madeleine alive outwith the family I would have thought a detailed description of this would be crucial in a 'definitive' account.

Though perhaps it's been left out for the same reason Payne's name or his visit wasn't mentioned in the Crimewatch programme which may, who knows, tie in with a newspaper article sometime ago about a couple of the McCanns' friends wishing to change their statements.

All will become clear in time I suppose !

Who wrote that one, Faith?

[stephen25000]

Can you point out where in this quote from Portugal Newswatch - that S&S claim that the McCanns co-operated fully in the writing of their book - as they quite clearly state the opposite.   

quote.

“We had a single meeting with the McCanns and one with the Met – both of them early in our research. The parents, and then the police, made only one request of us – a fair one given the parents’ hope and the Met’s working thesis that Madeleine may still be alive –  that we do nothing that might hinder or interfere with the ongoing investigation. We have been careful to abide by that request.”

How much cooperation did they get from Kate and Gerry McCann during their research and writing?

 “We have been totally independent of the McCanns – and we emphasise this, given the torrent of internet innuendo to the contrary even before Looking for Madeleine was published.

“An initial meeting aside, a meeting at which Madeleine’s parents made no attempt at all to influence our thinking, there was no cooperation. The parents believed we should work independently of them, and we would not have wanted it otherwise.”
Unquote

Are you saying S&S lied Stephen?  Please clarify.

Do you believe everything you read benice ?

How would the book have been published without the mccanns agreement, and of course checked for libel ?

Was it the fairies again ?

[Brietta]

Do you believe everything you read Venice ?

How would the book have been published without the mccanns agreement, and of course checked for libel ?

Was it the fairies again ?

     So S&S had to get the McCann's permission to write a book ... did they? 

All that really says is that you actually seem to beleeeeeve your own propaganda.  WOW!!

[stephen25000]

     So S&S had to get the McCann's permission to write a book ... did they? 

All that really says is that you actually seem to beleeeeeve your own propaganda.  WOW!!

Do you really think they could write the book without the mccanns permission ?   

[faithlilly]

Why should I seek to justify S & S's decisions about what to put in and leave out of their book?  As nothing out of the ordinary was reported by Payne when he visited Kate briefly that evening and as the book makes it very clear the authors having studied the case files don't believe Kate had anything to do with the disappearance, why do you think they should have included it?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that in a definitive book about any case the last time the victim was seen by anyone outside the family would not be included as a matter of course?

[Alfred R Jones]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that in a definitive book about any case the last time the victim was seen by anyone outside the family would not be included as a matter of course?

The family are not under suspicion - the book makes that clear.  The last people to see Madeleine were her parents and siblings.  Which part of this do you not understand?

[faithlilly]

The family are not under suspicion - the book makes that clear.  The last people to see Madeleine were her parents and siblings.  Which part of this do you not understand?

The author's know as much as us when it comes to who is now being investigated.  However your easy dismissal of a crucial witness does explain why you accept the tome as being 'definitive'.