Madeleine McCann Books

Does the book mention the cadaver dog alert? Presumably a corpse emitting cadaverine would no longer be 'warm from slumber'.

Excellent review of the book here by Enid O'Dowd, who wrote the excellent analysis of the Fund see mccannfiles.com  I hope she doesn't mind me copying here as it is on the amazon site.........



23 of 31 people found the following review helpful
 Rehash of information already in the public domain and no hard questions asked, 14 Sep 2014
By 
Enid O'Dowd

This review is from: Looking For Madeleine (Hardcover)
The advertising blurb states that ‘the authors demonstrate that the speculation that the McCanns played a part in their daughter’s fate is unfounded.’

Surely that means that a significant part of the book looks at all the reasons why sceptics claim the parents might be involved, then repudiates them with logical argument and with new research material.

And, a definitive and independent book as the publisher claims this is, would need to interview the main players: the parents, their tapas friends, Senor Amaral and independent witnesses like the Smith family who saw a man carrying a child that evening. It doesn’t; none of these people have talked to the authors which is not surprising considering that the case is still open.

This book is a combination of madeleine by Kate McCann and a rehash of various sightings/news articles over the years. One has to remember that many media articles are based on press releases issued by the McCann PR team. Indeed, one poster on a popular internet site suggests that the McCanns were the ghost writers of this book!

I don’t feel the authors had an open mind as they don’t question actions by the McCanns which have raised doubts in the public mind.

For example they don’t ask why the McCanns didn’t use the paying babysitting service provided by the nannies who worked in the daytime crèche. They only mention the evening crèche, as Kate did in her book saying it did not meet her needs as her children were in bed before it opened. She also said in her book that she would not have wanted to leave them with a stranger (babysitter) yet she left them in the crèche all day with the same girls who were (initially) strangers. She praised the nannies in her book yet never mentioned the option of using their services in the evening. Why would a group of well paid professionals opt to get up every 30 minutes from their dinner to check children when a satisfactory (paying) babysitting service was available?

Kate has justified the checking service by feeling so safe in the resort. But parents use babysitters not to deter the million to one chance of a kidnapping but to deal with children waking up/bad dreams/need a drink/ wet nappies/minor health issues etc.
It is not credible that the McCanns and their friends opted for an interrupted dinner rather than paying a babysitter. This makes the abduction story highly suspect.

Why do Summers and Swan, themselves the parents of three young children, not raise this issue?

Another issue the authors don’t raise, except in passing, is the setting up of a private limited company only days after Madeleine’s disappearance. I have published original research on this company Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned on http://mccannfiles.com/

The audited accounts of this company, despite a commitment in the book madeleine that it would be open and transparent ‘whatever it cost,’ have contained only the minimum information required by law, apart from the accounts for the period May 2007-March 2008 where detail was given, but which raised more questions than it answered. The accounts are not on the official McCann website. Why not?

Many people have queried the need for, and the secrecy of the company. Why has this not been addressed by the authors?

One interesting quotation from the book about the company:
‘The McCanns have not sought to profit from their situation – and Madeleine’s Fund has built in provisions to ensure this does not occur.’

They do not explain what those provisions are. It is not good enough to state something as a fact and not back it up.

The authors do this again in Chapter 15 which starts with the statement ‘there was never the smallest shred of fact or evidence to inculpate Maddie’s parents in any way at all.’

Even to someone whose knowledge of the case is limited, this statement is obviously untrue.

The authors do not mention the sworn statement made by the Gaspars, two doctors who went on an earlier holiday with the group. This statement has caused much concern among those who follow this case. While it may not indicate anything untoward, it was for unexplained reasons held back by the UK police for months before being passed to Portugal. It can be read on http://mccannfiles.com/

Surely the content of this statement and the delay in passing it to the Portuguese authorities is worthy of analysis by the authors?

I was very concerned by the use of the loaded word ‘haters’ to describe those who doubt the McCanns. Chapters 15 and 16 deal with prominent doubters (my preferred word), and the authors' bias comes through.

For example they mention that the website http://mccannfiles.com set up in 2007 by Nigel Moore has long had a donate button and still does now. Why is this negative? They admit that he, according to press reports, gives the website work his virtual full time attention. Isn’t it reasonable for him to suggest that people who use the mass of information he provides make a voluntary donation towards his running costs?

They write about Bren Ryan, former McCann doubter, who changed her mind ‘after reading the police files.’ But they do not state what therein was the cause. It would have been very interesting to hear her reasons. By way of contrast it would have been pertinent to have comments from someone who became a doubter after reading the police files.

In summary, it’s surprising that a pair of authors with such impressive CVs have come up with this rehash of the information and misinformation already in the public domain. This book is not investigative journalism. Its publication has created a new mystery. Why have the authors put their reputation on the line by producing a book like this?


http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R1NCZG442J2UFI/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=147221160X&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=266239&store=books#wasThisHelpful


Very good analysis Enid

Just been reading the comments left on Amazon. Great one by Enid.

Interesting one from a 'Jim Gamble'. Surely not the same JG....

2.0 out of 5 stars Not believable. Characters seem embellished, 15 Sep 2014
By Jim Gamble - See all my reviews
This review is from: Looking For Madeleine (Hardcover)
Been waiting to read. The introduction leaves you searching for more. As you read further you realize there is nothing new and fresh. As I remember reading in papers that Scotland Yard had already dismissed many of the burglars. Some of the characters seem embellished. Nothing new or riveting I am almost done and will probably not continue as authors never really went Looking for Madeleine as title states

http://www.algarvedailynews.com/news/3410-summers-and-swan-interview-part-ii

In part two of Len Port's interview with Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, the authors explain more about the background to their new book Looking for Madeleine, their thoughts on the police investigations so far, and what may now lie ahead in this extraordinary case.

How did you conduct your research? What was the process you followed?

First and foremost, we spent months doing what we have done on our previous eight books, reading all possible available documentation – in many cases a logistic challenge because of the Portuguese language factor. All of this was sorted and allocated and built into a vast chronology. Chronology, carefully assembled, is the key to investigation – whether by law enforcement or non-fiction authors.

When did you come to the conclusion that Kate and Gerry McCann played no part in covering up their daughter’s disappearance and that claims of this are unfounded?

Were we to have to put a date on this current view of ours, we would say it was at the stage a few months ago when – after all the months of analysing the available evidence and testimony – we were finalizing the manuscript.

Can your book be accurately considered as ‘the definitive account’ of this unsolved case?

Note that our publisher has said that the book is “the most definitive account possible.” Possible at this time. We hope and believe that it is exactly the case at this point, as of September 2014. Events yet to occur may change that and – as and when they do – we would hope to update our work.

Your book has been described as ‘a whitewash’ and ‘propaganda,’ and criticism has been levelled at the amount of ‘spin’ it received in the British media before publication? What is your reaction to this?

It is emphatically not a whitewash, whether or not those making the allegations choose to believe it or not. Should they look at the available evidence and testimony, and in turn how we report it in Looking for Madeleine, they will find such allegations untenable. We know of no articles about us or the book that could be called "spin.” There have been news stories based on the information in the book - that is reporting.

How would you sum up the way in which the investigations have been conducted over the past seven years?

A muddle of events and developments, poorly reported and – because of the lengthy lapse of time after the case was archived – critically interrupted. Hopefully, with both nations’ police forces for some time now engaged in systematic fresh work, lost ground may be retrieved.

How relevant is the Gamble report discussed on Sky TV shortly before publication of the book?

The report written by former Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre head Jim Gamble and his team has not been released. In an interview for our book, Gamble discussed it, we believe, more openly and at greater length than ever before, and this was justifiably newsworthy. The inclusion of this self-critique of British law enforcement’s role in the investigation, from a senior source, was welcome and long overdue. The first Portuguese investigation has been widely criticised, often exaggeratedly and in a way that seemed xenophobic. The new openness from the UK’s Gamble may go some way to redressing the balance. Once it becomes ethically possible, Portuguese law enforcement may perhaps offer similar up-to-date background. Should that occur, we would be glad to report it in a new edition of Looking for Madeleine.

How long do you expect the investigation to continue?

Rather than speak in terms of months or weeks, we hope the investigations by both Portuguese and British law enforcement will be allowed to continue until they have followed up on all the lines of inquiry they regard as necessary. We hope the climate of public opinion in both countries develops positively, in a way that favours true international cooperation. Unbiased, moderate media reporting could do much to make this possible.

Do you think the mystery will ever be solved?

A major breakthrough would be a forensic lead. Any trace, dead or alive, of Madeleine. The police never forget, though, that someone, somewhere, knows – or suspects they have knowledge – of what happened to Madeleine. Someone’s wife, someone’s brother or sister or friend. Someone who noticed something but has until now kept it to themselves. What cold case investigators always hope for is that some hitherto unknown witness or witnesses will come forward with the fragment of information that can break the case. It’s happened in the past, and could yet happen in the case of Madeleine.

© Len Port 2014

* Anthony Summers, formally a deputy editor of the BBC's Panorama, is the author of eight investigative books and the only two-time winner of the Crime Writers' Association's top award for non-fiction.

Robbyn Swan, his co-author and wife, has partnered Summers on three previous biographies and investigations. Their book The Eleventh Day, on the 9/11 attacks, was a Finalist for the 2012 Pulitzer Prize.sumersandswan

_______

For the first part of this two part interview, see:

http://www.algarvedailynews.com/news/3409-summers-and-swan-reply-to-critics-of-their-madeleine-book



Algarve-based, Len Port, has been a journalist for 50 years, working as a staff reporter, broadcaster and freelance correspondent for many leading news organisations. He covered events in the Far east in the Sixties, and in Northern Ireland and South Africa in the Seventies.

Since moving to Portugal in the early Eighties, he has edited regional magazines, contributed to national dailies in Britain and written several books, two of which are currently available as ebooks with Amazon.

Some Scientist writing a chapter by chapter review on the Summers and Swan book.

http://my-mccann-thoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/looking-for-madeleine-chapter-by.html

Monday, September 15, 2014

Looking For Madeleine A chapter by chapter review.
Introduction.

Those of you who have read my blog posts about the DNA evidence will know that I am neither for or against Kate & Gerry McCann. I have no vested interest except that my training as a scientist requires that I examine all evidence critically and that I seek the truth based only on a thorough examination of all the evidence. Science also teaches us that evidence & predictions drawn from it can often be tested by experimentation which in turn can generate new evidence that leads to a greater understanding of the truth. Instinct & gut feeling have no place in science other than, perhaps, in helping to form an initial hypothesis. Nor do personal attacks so if you do reply to this blog (please do by the way) please stick to facts.
My motivation for doing this review is that the authors have claimed to be able to demonstrate that Madeleine was abducted. I sincerely hope they have been able to do so because that would be a significant step forwards in solving this case. However if this is a false claim, and if it becomes widely accepted that would have the opposite effect. Thus I embark on this project with hopeful skepticism.

For the record I am reading the kindle version of the book. If there are differences between this and the hardback version I will not be aware of them.


Looking For Madeleine Chapter 1.

The opening phrase of the book is concerning as it appears to set the tone for the rest of the book. I know I have not finished the book yet, but I have read the authors opening note,extracts in press and several summaries so I have an idea of the books conclusions.
Back to the opening phrase " 'There she was, perfect,'" is attributed to Kate McCann. Anyone who has studies the case will be well aware of Gerry McCann's "She was almost perfect" comment in an interview. A comment that has led to a great deal of criticism. Thus the opening phrase seems to be an attempt to do several things. 1. Right Gerry's wrong. 2. Give a slightly false impression to the reader. & 3. Provoke those who are convinced that the McCann's faked Madeleine's abduction.
In fairness to the authors Kate does say something very similar in her book, but this was written after Gerry made his "almost perfect" comment so can also be seen as trying to right a previous wrong. I would have hoped that what the authors claim to be the first independent, objective account of the case would not have such a provocative opening phrase.

Unfortunately within just a few paragraphs we come to an inaccuracy. The authors refer to Madeleine's eye "defect" (it is no more of a defect than having blue or green or brown eyes) as a coloboma. A coloboma is a hole in , or an imperfectly formed iris. As far as we can tell from studying photographs, and the McCann's stressed this in a TV interview, Madeleine's right eye contained a fleck of brown colour in a perfectly formed iris. It was almost certainly not a coloboma so to say it definitely was a coloboma is not accurate.

Next we come to a description of the young Madeleine. The authors are honest in describing her as a difficult child, but try to give the impression that her sleeping & behavior problems had been largely solved. "The stars mounted up" suggesting that the stars Madeleine was awarded for sleeping a whole night in her own bed were issued almost every night. The evidence that this was the case is not good. A photograph of the reward chart has only 7 stars on it (http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/ROTHLEY.htm) & Kate states in her book that a star was put up every time Madeleine stayed in her own bed all night. Furthermore we know that Madeleine spent woke up & spent one night in her parents bed while on holiday in Praia Da Luz. These two verifiable facts suggest to me that Madeleine was not good at sleeping all night in her own bed.

There are a number of questionable things in the next few paragraphs, but the authors are setting the scene for the start of the holiday so I'll let most of these pass. However the authors make a significant omission when relating the story of the camera-phone footage taken in the bus at Faro airport. They say that David Payne exclaims "Cheer up, Gerry! We're on holiday!" , but they omit Gerry's reply. There are a number of versions of this reply on the internet, but it is fairly certain that Gerry said "I not here to enjoy myself". He may also have used an expletive. Of course it is possible that Gerry was making a sort of joke, but there seems to be no humor in his reply & no one appears to laugh. In the light of what was to happen later this could be significant, but it is omitted.

In relating what happened on the holiday the authors do depart from the McCann party line when discussing the name by which Madeleine was called. They accept that at the creche she seemed happy to be called Maddy. Credit to the authors for this.

The description of the holiday continues with reasonable accuracy, although with a rather one sided slant. The description of the reasoning behind the decision to leave the children alone and make checks every 15mins or so seems somewhat biased. There is no questioning of how or why such a decision was taken. No discussion of whether any, not even one, of the group questioned the safety of such a scheme. This is one of the main reasons people criticise the McCann's yet the authors simply accept the version given. Perhaps they will tackle this issue later.

There is a comment about Gerry's addiction to tennis and running. This is something that has been questioned. How much tennis did Gerry play before the holiday. What does the tennis coach from the OC say about Gerry's proficiency and attitude to tennis. Was Gerry a member of a tennis club? Does he still play tennis? I say this because there are people who claim that Gerry prefers golf & some who say that he hardly played tennis at all before or since this holiday. The authors should have been in a position to check these facts.

The description of evenings in the tapas bar concentrates on the Wednesday night. There is an admission that the group drank quite heavily that night and stayed up well past midnight. There is a description of Gerry leaving shortly before Kate & of Kate finding Gerry asleep and snoring. Such a brief account of what could be a critical event seems strange. Did the authors ask the tapas 7 or Kate and Gerry to elaborate. How long did Kate remain in the bar after Gerry left? Did she try to stop him leaving? Was there any reason for him to leave abruptly? This event could suggest that there was something amiss. Some source of tension between them. I hope that the authors explore this later in the book.

It is worth pointing out here that if they stayed till after midnight on 2nd May & if there story about checking on the children is true the McCann's would have made a total of at least 12 return trips to the apartment that night in spite of having a fair amount to drink. I mention this simply to draw attention to the nature of the regime they claim to have adopted.

Now we come to another of the important incidents of the week. The account that has been given by the McCann's of Madeleine's comment early on Thursday morning that she and Sean had been crying the night before and that no one had come to her or Sean. The authors accept Kate's version that when she asked Madeleine what she had meant Madeleine had already become interested in something else.
This story may or may not be true. If it is true it raises a number of questions. If it is not true it raises even more questions. Some people find Kate's account of this difficult to believe. It is impossible to say for sure whether it is true or not, but some critical analysis of the subject is warranted in an objective account of the case. Perhaps the authors cover this later. We shall see.

The account of Thursday 3rd May continues. In just a couple of pages the authors describe in very simple terms the events of the day and the fateful evening that Madeleine went missing. Amazingly description of the largely uneventful day is more detailed that the description of the events of the fateful evening. The checks are not analysed in detail. The only detail given is of Kate telling Jane & Fiona that Madeleine had said she & Sean woke up the previous night. Only the bare bones of the checks are there. There is no mention of Gerry being gone longer than expected, of his meeting with Jez Wilkins or of Jane Tanner seeing a man carrying a child. Perhaps these will be covered later, but it does seem odd to hurry through the events of that evening. The chapter ends with Kate returning to the tapas bar and shouting "Madeliene's gone".
This is followed by a quote from the tapas waiters statement, the book says :-

"Long minutes later, still in the restaurant, waiter Jeronimo Salcedas heard what he would come to assume had been Kate screaming 'Never in my life'....'had I heard a cry like that....' ".

These is an accurate quote in it's meaning, but not 100% word for word as quotes should be. Nor is it given it's full context by the authors. The quotes in the book come from his second statement made in April 2008 almost a year after the event. His statement made on 6th May 2007 when events should have been fresh in his memory he makes a similar, but slightly different comment. Here is a 100% accurate quote from his second statement:

"I ran out of the Tapas and noticed that some of the childcare works of the Mark Warner had begun to arrive. At the point I left the Tapas I heard a scream from a woman I did not know. I do not know who screamed, but I had never heard a similar cry. I cannot even describe it but thought it had come from the child's mother."


In this first statement he also appears to be unaware of Kate entering the tapas bar to raise the alarm. He does not mention it at all. He says he only noticed something when he saw Diane Webster was sitting alone. He says seconds later that Gerry appeared & was looking for Madeleine & headed for the pool area. Here is a more complete quote from his first statement:-

"At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.

The person in question said that the others had gone to the apartment to look for a girl who had disappeared. Seconds later Madeleine's father appeared, greatly agitated, looking for his daughter everywhere, obviously and immediately heading towards the pool and surrounding areas.

Shortly afterwards Luz Ocean Club was in a state of absolute commotion. Everyone was trying to help in the search for Madeleine which was multiplied in numerous search actions over a large perimeter. The witness immediately perceived the seriousness of the situation. Madeleine's mother was shouting desperately for her daughter. The witness told another chef at the Millenium restaurant so that he would also help in the searches."

I make no judgement about the significance of the statements. The waiter clearly heard someone (probably Kate) screaming some time after the alarm had been raised and searches were ongoing. However the way this is presented in the book is subtly misleading & not what I would hope to see in a definitive, unbiased account.

So all in all not a great start, but hopefully some concerns expressed above will be addressed in later chapters.

Next installment tomorrow.

Thanks for that Andrew.
And thank you Richard Phillips. As with KM's book I get so worked up about the inaccuracies and cowpoo that I cannot read it for myself.

There were 26 reviews of the hard cover version on Amazon when I looked just now : 10 give 5 stars, 2 give 2 stars and 14 give one star (you have to give a minimum of one).

Now in reviewing I think the reader should compare the cover blurb to the reality. They should also give detail to justify their review especially when giving all 5 stars or just one.

Do the reviewers do this? Those who give one or two stars generally do, but the 10 reviews giving the 5 stars are very low on specifics:

Extracts from these 5 star reviews:

‘really detailed study of this tragic case and very well researched.’

’this is a book for independent thinkers’

‘One star reviews are one sided and too bad to be true’

Suberb book backed up by years of research. Examines in depth all the available evidence’

Most of these reviews (ie negative ones) make absolutely no sense’

‘a must read for those who can’t be doing with traipsing thro the files’

‘thoroughly well researched; impartial’

In the only review where the reviewer was more specific he said the authors deconstructed the forensic evidence in laymans terms showing that the McCanns had no case to answer. He also said they quote the files in date order showing there was never any real evidence against the family.

I hope all members will post a review if and when they read this book. I have to admit I can’t bring myself to buy it but may try to get it from the library.

Thanks from me too. I look forward to reading what else he has to say.

I`m waiting to find out whether S&S mention Mrs. Fenn`s statement regarding the 1hr 45mins of crying on the Tuesday night.

I had the intention of actually buying the book at lunchtime today but then I came to my senses.

I'm sure I will be able to pick one up for 50p very soon from a charity shop. Can wait.

Look forward to reading the rest of the reviews from this excellent new blogger.

Andrew wrote:I had the intention of actually buying the book at lunchtime today but then I came to my senses.

I'm sure I will be able to pick one up for 50p very soon from a charity shop. Can wait.

Look forward to reading the rest of the reviews from this excellent new blogger.

Doh, I had a mad moment and bought one today from Amazon.  Still all in the interest of research.

candyfloss wrote:

Andrew wrote:I had the intention of actually buying the book at lunchtime today but then I came to my senses.

I'm sure I will be able to pick one up for 50p very soon from a charity shop. Can wait.

Look forward to reading the rest of the reviews from this excellent new blogger.

Doh, I had a mad moment and bought one today from Amazon.  Still all in the interest of research.

Haha. It was £15.99 in WH Smiths. (£3.00 reduction)

Hope you paid a lot less than that CF.

Andrew wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Andrew wrote:I had the intention of actually buying the book at lunchtime today but then I came to my senses.

I'm sure I will be able to pick one up for 50p very soon from a charity shop. Can wait.

Look forward to reading the rest of the reviews from this excellent new blogger.

Doh, I had a mad moment and bought one today from Amazon.  Still all in the interest of research.

Haha. It was £15.99 in WH Smiths. (£3.00 reduction)

Hope you paid a lot less than that CF.

Only £9 at Amazon and hardback.  I love books but not paperbacks

Kindle edition was £6.99.

Summers & Swan ‏@summersandswan                                     
#richardandjudy describe our book, Looking for Madeleine, about #MadeleineMcCann case as "forensically detailed...incredibly chilling".

.....and with maniacal cackles of laughter in response to that quote from the 2014 Brains of Britain Richard and Judy, I bid you all good night.

http://www.novelrank.com/title/looking-for-madeleine-hardcover

http://www.novelrank.com/asin/B00M407EGM

The Amazon sales figures show a total sales of 10 hard cover copies, and 8 kindles in total to date.

LOL...well I'm glad that my initial assessment was correct..they're not going to make any money from it...even if their sales quadruple overnight, this book is a dodo...

My suggestion would be..don't buy the book, lets not let another person make money from this poor child, we all know what the basic premise of the book is, and of course it has been serialized in a national newspaper, so why bother?

I would be surprised if the libraries even bother to buy it...

Admin wrote:

Andrew wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Andrew wrote:I had the intention of actually buying the book at lunchtime today but then I came to my senses.

I'm sure I will be able to pick one up for 50p very soon from a charity shop. Can wait.

Look forward to reading the rest of the reviews from this excellent new blogger.

Doh, I had a mad moment and bought one today from Amazon.  Still all in the interest of research.

Haha. It was £15.99 in WH Smiths. (£3.00 reduction)

Hope you paid a lot less than that CF.

Only £9 at Amazon and hardback.  I love books but not paperbacks

How much?!?!?!?!

What a waste of money. You can get 9 rolls of Andrex for under a fiver - it's softer and there's no chance of Gerry becoming imprinted on your backside!

susible wrote:My suggestion would be..don't buy the book, lets not let another person make money from this poor child, we all know what the basic premise of the book  is, and of course it has been serialized in a national newspaper, so why bother?

I would be surprised if the libraries even bother to buy it...

I've bought it already, but I agree - don't buy it.  For one thing it's total rubbish, the authors have done no investigative work at all, everything in the book you can find in press reports, the PJ files, and Kate's book.  What you won't find is any single thing that points the finger of suspicion at the McCanns.  You'll also find complete untruths, fiction, lies.  An example of this is the claim that the GNR officer sat Gerry and Russell O'Brien down and asked them to write the handwritten timelines, which is utterly contradicted by that same officer's statement.

Unfortunately some more 5 star reviews since I made the opening post tho the one star still outnumber them.Any member who has bought it should do a detailed honest review.

The authors have a marketing team behind them and I am sure libraries will buy it especially as they are established writers who were apparently shortlisted for a pulitzer prize.

Ooofft...your poor eyes (and logical brain) trawling through that wlbts..you're a martyr to the cause...

Incredible though that this piece of junk can be feted as the "definitive" account of the investigation...on similar lines to Kate's account of the "truth"

My own feeling on this book is that although S&S claim they only had one meeting with the McCanns, it probably was a collaboration, and from the McCanns point of view, it was an attempt to "re-affirm" their "innocence" and from S&S they probably thought they could make a lot of money on the basis that the "Maddie" story sells...looks like they were wrong though, because I think the public are just fed up now and view the McCanns with more suspicion than ever.

I wonder what DCI Redwood and his team think of it...raised eyebrows all round I imagine.

Have there been any other instances where books (whether good or bad) have been published when cases are still open and unsolved?

Obviously this excludes historical events like the Jack the Ripper murders where it is too late to put anyone on trial.

Antonia wrote:Unfortunately some more 5 star reviews since I made the opening post tho the one star still outnumber them.Any member who has bought it should do a detailed honest review.

The authors have a marketing team behind them and I am sure libraries will buy it especially as they are established writers who were apparently shortlisted for a pulitzer prize.

Not so sure about the libraries buying it, I used to work for a local authority library service and as times are tough with all of the cutbacks, the team who decide what to buy in terms of what will be most requested and therefore loaned out is what determines their choice...so far they've sold 18 books, not exactly a best seller.

I wouldn't worry about the 5 star reviews either as it seems that so far, the only people who have bought it are those with an interest in the case,whether they be pro or anti, so all that tells me, is that another pro has submitted a review. Overall though, I don't think the public care that much and as they have read the salient parts in the newspaper serialization and would probably come to the conclusion that it's the same drivel they've been reading in the Daily Mail for the last 18 months