Summers & Swan - A new book - Looking For Madeleine

[Lyall]

By launching a book that basically only says "we're respected writers, you should take our words for it" they made the amazon reviews inevitable. They're S&S's problem.

[Alfred R Jones]

By launching a book that basically only says "we're respected writers, you should take our words for it" they made the amazon reviews inevitable. They're S&S's problem.

I don't think they said that - even if they'd written a 10 volume account including very detail on Faithlilly's list they'd still have got 1 star reviews if their conclusions were not to the "sceptics" liking, let's be honest now.

[Anna]

Is it any wonder that S&S had no kind words for people like this?

Debate is one thing and the right to air your views, but…………………
Sniping at and  trying their utmost to hurt people, that they don’t even know, for no other reason  than, THEY believe these people are guilty of something. Not………. innocent until proven otherwise.
They obviously believe that they are above the law and have elected themselves, to be judge, jury and executioner. Dishing out the punishment as they see fit, on the internet and by mail.

Why do they do it? And what satisfaction can they gain from it????  It is a total mystery to me how people can be so unkind.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Looking for Madeleine…Excerpt:-

The hating in one form or another started early. Cruel anonymous letters began arriving just after Madeleine went missing.
One told the McCanns that their daughter was being tortured and that they were responsible. Another that she was dead and buried.

Back home at Christmas they received a card that read……………………

‘You ******* thieving bast**** . Your brat is Dead because of your drunken arrogance.
If you had any shame you would accept full responsibility for your daughter‘s disappearance .You are s..m.’

There was even a death threat.

What caused additional torment was the opportunity to spread poison provided by the internet on websites and discussion groups and blogs. Any High-profile case there will always be people who want to get their views across. In the McCann case the internet exponentially increased.
………………………………........................................................................
………………………………..........................................................................
………………………………........................................................................



Tony Bennett of the Madeleine foundation, who acted openly was not one of the cowards who hid behind his computer screen. Nor was his enthusiastic supporter Jill Havern a Birmingham based driving instructor with a grudge against the NHS. And Glenfield hospital in particular.

(It seems to me that S&S were talking about the site owners (who enabled their members to post such vile posts), when he was referring to Cowards, but that is only my interpretation of what he has written)

[mercury]

There have always been nutters. The internet age has given them an equal voice.
The problem as I see it in this particular case is the concerted and orchestrated effort, as I see it, to label all people who have reservations about the story as told, as nutters, [ censored word ]s, and all other epithets applied. It's also a little ironic.

[Lyall]

Anna, that passage you quote is a good example of why they deserve the bad reviews %£&)**#

It's emotional manipulation. Anyone as much on TV as the McCanns were will get disturbed and/or starstruck people writing to them, but S&S want readers to think everything that ended up in their Nutty Box was sent by those horrible online people.

That's dishonesty Anna.

[Alfred R Jones]

Anna, that passage you quote is a good example of why they deserve the bad reviews %£&)**#

It's emotional manipulation. Anyone as much on TV as the McCanns were will get disturbed and/or starstruck people writing to them, but S&S want readers to think everything that ended up in their Nutty Box was sent by those horrible online people.

That's dishonesty Anna.

What in the passage quoted by Anna is dishonest, specifically?

[Lyall]

What in the passage quoted by Anna is dishonest, specifically?

I just said. They ignore the sociology of cases like these in order to suggest that all of the post etc. they get  has been sent by the online monsters.

[Alfred R Jones]

I just said. They ignore the sociology of cases like these in order to suggest that all of the post etc. they get  has been sent by the online monsters.

That's not what it says in the passage quoted above.

[Alice Purjorick]

What  I am saying is they don't have to pander to [ censored word ]s and [ censored word ] by giving their daft theories any credence at all. As I said, their opinions are supported by all the known facts, if you can't accept that then that's your problem.

Quite right too.
How many of these [ censored word ]s do you believe to be among us rather than locked up where they perhaps should be? (that is [ censored word ]s of both flavours in this instance). Is it in your opinion a significant number in terms of percentage of population?
Did the book sales reach even 1% of the population? That's about 630,000 bodies.

[Mr Gray]

Quite right too.
How many of these [ censored word ]s do you believe to be among us rather than locked up where they perhaps should be? (that is [ censored word ]s of both flavours in this instance). Is it in your opinion a significant number in terms of percentage of population?
Did the book sales reach even 1% of the population? That's about 630,000 bodies.

it's all relative as Einstein would say to his uncle......far more bought the book than contributed to amaral's fund

[stephen25000]

it's all relative as Einstein would say to his uncle......far more bought the book than contributed to amaral's fund

So you know the exact sales figures ?

As regards donations to Amaral, still early days yet.

[G-Unit]

There have always been nutters. The internet age has given them an equal voice.
The problem as I see it in this particular case is the concerted and orchestrated effort, as I see it, to label all people who have reservations about the story as told, as nutters, [ censored word ], and all other epithets applied. It's also a little ironic.

I wonder if they include John Stalker in that?

“My gut instinct is that some big secret is probably being covered up.
“I have watched the investigation into the Madeleine McCann case drag out for six months.
“One thing above all worries me: Why have the McCanns and the seven other members of their group – the Tapas Nine – remained so silent?
“Unlike other high-profile cases I have worked on, not one of them has been prepared to break ranks or really come out and support each other.
“After all this time and pressure, I cannot believe that nobody wants to speak.
“I have a real suspicion that we are not being told the whole truth. There is something else there, some issue that members of the party are embarrassed about”


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490254/McCanns-hiding-big-secret-police-chief-claims.html#ixzz3a6QXAx76
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Alice Purjorick]

it's all relative as Einstein would say to his uncle......far more bought the book than contributed to amaral's fund

A slightly redundant post on your part. With Dr Amaral's fund it's 'ow much money not 'ow many people contributed.

[Eleanor]

I wonder if they include John Stalker in that?

“My gut instinct is that some big secret is probably being covered up.
“I have watched the investigation into the Madeleine McCann case drag out for six months.
“One thing above all worries me: Why have the McCanns and the seven other members of their group – the Tapas Nine – remained so silent?
“Unlike other high-profile cases I have worked on, not one of them has been prepared to break ranks or really come out and support each other.
“After all this time and pressure, I cannot believe that nobody wants to speak.
“I have a real suspicion that we are not being told the whole truth. There is something else there, some issue that members of the party are embarrassed about”


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490254/McCanns-hiding-big-secret-police-chief-claims.html#ixzz3a6QXAx76
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

John Stalker obviously didn't know much about Portuguese Secrecy Laws.  But he must do now because we never heard from him again.

[Brietta]

I wonder if they include John Stalker in that?

“My gut instinct is that some big secret is probably being covered up.
“I have watched the investigation into the Madeleine McCann case drag out for six months.
“One thing above all worries me: Why have the McCanns and the seven other members of their group – the Tapas Nine – remained so silent?
“Unlike other high-profile cases I have worked on, not one of them has been prepared to break ranks or really come out and support each other.
“After all this time and pressure, I cannot believe that nobody wants to speak.
“I have a real suspicion that we are not being told the whole truth. There is something else there, some issue that members of the party are embarrassed about”


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490254/McCanns-hiding-big-secret-police-chief-claims.html#ixzz3a6QXAx76
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Please do take things in context ... disingenuous to say the least to selectively quote Lee Rainbow and now John Stalker who rather obviously was not familiar with PORTUGUESE SECRECY LAWS.

Reliance on such shows not only your bias but the paucity of a sustainable argument to support your beliefs.

I doubt very much that whatever S&S would decide to include would prevent well informed individuals from presenting such deceits to the ill informed to disseminate as the whole truth of the matter when it is patently anything but.

As John Stalker is on record as saying ...


**snip

My instinct, based on years of policing similar cases, is that we are looking at an abduction where the child was targeted in the days before her disappearance.

On the night she vanished it is likely that her abductor simply spotted his opportunity and struck while he could.

I have been horrified by the abject failure of the Portuguese detectives to adhere to basic principles of policing.

The investigation does not seem to have taken a step forward from where it was in the first week after she went missing. I cannot believe that the Portuguese only sent selected DNA samples to the forensic science lab in Birmingham.

There is absolutely no sense in that whatsoever. To fully evaluate poor-quality DNA traces, as we believe these were, forensic experts need to see the whole picture.

In the past, when I have dealt with traces of bodily fluids, it is very difficult to establish how they got to be where they were.

All DNA is highly transferable and that is the most likely explanation for the alleged traces found in the McCanns’ hire car and on her mother’s clothing. Robert Murat, the other suspect, was seen close to the apartment the day after Madeleine disappeared and freely admits having helped police as a translator.

If he was in that apartment, or anywhere near it, ther is no doubt he would have transferred some of Madeleine’s or the twins’ DNA on to his clothing.

I don’t believe for one minute that Kate and Gerry McCann or their friends are capable or guilty of having murdered the four-year-old.

All the criticism of Kate and Gerry and their friends has been completely out of order. They are extremely intelligent and articulate people and, just because they have never visibly cracked in public to the extent that they are beaten, does not mean that they are guilty of anything sinister.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/6oct7/EXPRESS-28-10-07.htm