Summers & Swan - A new book - Looking For Madeleine

[Alfred R Jones]

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'.

I described it as "the most definitive and up-to-date book currently available" - if you would care to point me to a more thoroughly exhaustive and up-to-date book on the subject I'll happily revise my views. 

[Lyall]

I described it as "the most definitive and up-to-date book currently available" - if you would care to point me to a more thoroughly exhaustive and up-to-date book on the subject I'll happily revise my views.

When their narrative about what happened that night includes the claim/admission they left the rear patio door unlocked (and possibly the front door also, with nobody ever talking about the locks on the other windows), if you're writing a book about a child's disappearance and want to be taken seriously you surely need to include every detail known about the final few hours.

If you don't include them then people will wonder why. The book isn't actually about Madeleine's disappearance. It's not a history of what happened to her - it's a history of what happened to her parents.

[Lyall]

But they sold it as being about Madeleine, that's the point. It isn't.

If they'd sold it as a tribute to her parents then fine, but they didn't.

[Alfred R Jones]

When their narrative about what happened that night includes the claim/admission they left the rear patio door unlocked (and possibly the front door also, with nobody ever talking about the locks on the other windows), if you're writing a book about a child's disappearance and want to be taken seriously you surely need to include every detail known about the final few hours.

If you don't include them then people will wonder why. The book isn't actually about Madeleine's disappearance. It's not a history of what happened to her - it's a history of what happened to her parents.

How can it be a history of what happened to her?  Only the person who took her can write that book.  Anyway, nothing is stopping one of you "sceptics" writing the definitive book and including all the important stuff like the lost wallet, and Gerry helping a man taken ill on a plane.  You won't get a publisher but you can always post it on the internet for free.  Perhaps the literary Stud Muffin himself could turn his hand to it, rather than churning out incandescent bile-filled blog entries...? I'm sure he'd be very objective and definitive.   

[Alfred R Jones]

But they sold it as being about Madeleine, that's the point. It isn't.

If they'd sold it as a tribute to her parents then fine, but they didn't.

The book is entitled "Looking For Madeleine" - the emphasis being on what happened after she went missing, I would have thought that obvious from the title.

[Carana]

When their narrative about what happened that night includes the claim/admission they left the rear patio door unlocked (and possibly the front door also, with nobody ever talking about the locks on the other windows), if you're writing a book about a child's disappearance and want to be taken seriously you surely need to include every detail known about the final few hours.

If you don't include them then people will wonder why. The book isn't actually about Madeleine's disappearance. It's not a history of what happened to her - it's a history of what happened to her parents.

It seems to be an account of a "cause célèbre". Nothing is known about what actually happened to Madeleine aside from the fact that she is still missing.

[Lyall]

How can it be a history of what happened to her?  Only the person who took her can write that book.  Anyway, nothing is stopping one of you "sceptics" writing the definitive book and including all the important stuff like the lost wallet, and Gerry helping a man taken ill on a plane.  You won't get a publisher but you can always post it on the internet for free.  Perhaps the literary Stud Muffin himself could turn his hand to it, rather than churning out incandescent bile-filled blog entries...? I'm sure he'd be very objective and definitive.   

You have to include everything known about the hours leading up to the child's disappearance (which isn't much, so omitting some of the not much will raise eyebrows).

If you do not include those details then the book isn't actually the book it was sold as.

[Lyall]

The book is entitled "Looking For Madeleine" - the emphasis being on what happened after she went missing, I would have thought that obvious from the title.

That's not how they sold it in their press and TV interviews.

[Lyall]

It seems to be an account of a "cause célèbre". Nothing is known about what actually happened to Madeleine aside from the fact that she is still missing.

I agree, but a) the book is certain it was abduction (how can it be when little or nothing is known?), and b) they sold it as being about what happened to Madeleine (not as being about what happened afterwards).

[Alfred R Jones]

I agree, but a) the book is certain it was abduction (how can it be when little or nothing is known?), and b) they sold it as being about what happened to Madeleine (not as being about what happened afterwards).

But the book is called "Looking For Madeleine" and has never made any claim to solving the mystery.  The authors are perfectly entitled to write a book based on their own reading of the files and on all subsequent information available to them.  If they have come to the conclusion that Madeleine was abducted then that is a perfectly valid opinion, even if it is one you don't happen to agree with.  With that in mind, what happened when David Payne spent a few moments chatting to Kate and 6.30pm on the night Madeleine disappeared is pretty irrelevant to the narrative. 

[stephen25000]

But the book is called "Looking For Madeleine" and has never made any claim to solving the mystery.  The authors are perfectly entitled to write a book based on their own reading of the files and on all subsequent information available to them.  If they have come to the conclusion that Madeleine was abducted then that is a perfectly valid opinion, even if it is one you don't happen to agree with.  With that in mind, what happened when David Payne spent a few moments chatting to Kate and 6.30pm on the night Madeleine disappeared is pretty irrelevant to the narrative.

So why pay for a one sided book, which is only voicing an opinion ?

[Alfred R Jones]

I agree, but a) the book is certain it was abduction (how can it be when little or nothing is known?), and b) they sold it as being about what happened to Madeleine (not as being about what happened afterwards).

The book you want to read, and which hasn't been written is the one that claims to examine impartially and objectively all the different theories (and then comes to the conclusion the parents dunnit, anything else wouldn't do at all!)

[Lyall]

But the book is called "Looking For Madeleine" and has never made any claim to solving the mystery.  The authors are perfectly entitled to write a book based on their own reading of the files and on all subsequent information available to them.  If they have come to the conclusion that Madeleine was abducted then that is a perfectly valid opinion, even if it is one you don't happen to agree with.  With that in mind, what happened when David Payne spent a few moments chatting to Kate and 6.30pm on the night Madeleine disappeared is pretty irrelevant to the narrative.

The point some of the Amazon reviewers were making was that the book's conclusions are simply the opinions of it's authors, and that their opinions are not supported by evidence in the book. Those reviewers - whether verified purchasers or not - were correct to point this out.

[Alfred R Jones]

The point some of the Amazon reviewers were making was that the book's conclusions are simply the opinions of it's authors, and that their opinions are not supported by evidence in the book. Those reviewers - whether verified purchasers or not - were correct to point this out.

Summers and Swan aren't the BBC - they are entitled to hold opinions, opinions which ARE supported by the facts.  They didn't write the book to try and convince people like you that the McCanns are innocent, it's like if you write a book about the events of the Holocaust, you're under no obligation to justify why you believe the holocaust happened and why deniers are wrong - do you think that  books about the Holocaust that don't examine deniers' theories cannot be called "definitive" or accurate?

[Lyall]

Summers and Swan aren't the BBC - they are entitled to hold opinions, opinions which ARE supported by the facts.  They didn't write the book to try and convince people like you that the McCanns are innocent, it's like if you write a book about the events of the Holocaust, you're under no obligation to justify why you believe the holocaust happened and why deniers are wrong - do you think that  books about the Holocaust that don't examine deniers' theories cannot be called "definitive" or accurate?

Alfred, the more you say the more you're justifying why people left the reviews of the book.

It was only the second book published in the UK (apart from the McCann one).

You're saying this second book didn't have to include evidence to support its opinions?

If that's what they thought then they deserved every review that was left.

(Your holocaust comparison isn't remotely relevant I'm afraid.)