Madeleine McCann Books

Freedom wrote: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.

I can't think of any Freedom. That was the first thing that crossed my mind when I saw the book was to be published, what on earth do Operation Grange think about this "definitive" account of the investigation, that they have yet to conclude.

susible wrote: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.

This book will cause some bruising to both egos and bank balances.

The "definitive" account of the as yet unsolved crime of the century, with the iconic child at its heart, written by famous prizewinning investigative journalists.

The book that was printed in the hundreds and sold in single digits - it's not even going to cover its costs.

IMO this book (although not read it), has Team McCann all over it.

They couldn't write it themselves. E.g Kate part 2. So approached an author with or did have credibility and brokered some deal. Summer getting on a bit thought he was in line for a nice retirement fund and chose the money (or though by the looks of it won't make a sausage) over his own credibility and status. I'm sure he totally underestimated the whole magnitude of it all. Scored a massive own goal and in hindsight, I bet he wished he never put pen to paper now.

It was clearly aimed to come out when the damages trial concluded. I should imagine Team McCann wanted it postponed but the publishers refused.

Backfired on the lot of them. Great stuff.

 well said Andrew..totally agree

Here's my take on it.

The authors claim the idea for the book came from their young daughter whose middle name is madeleine asked them how long they would look for her if she was missing. I don't buy that. I'd even question if her middle name is madeleine!

Authors approached to take on project and favourable financial terms offered. The big question is who approached them. If the Mccanns are behind it, the approach would have come from an agent of theirs who these fine investigative journalists could not connect to the couple.

Authors approach their publisher and pitch the idea. Publisher accepts as they have sold books before and case is high profile. Advance agreed.

Now Summers and swan won't lose as under my scenario they have a payment from whoever approached them and an advance from their publisher. Advances are not returnable. If sales are poor there may be no royalties as the advance would have to be covered first.  There would have been payments for the 'serialisation' of the book etc - not sure whether the publisher gets all that or the money is split with the authors.

The publishing company stands to lose as it may have printed a large no of copies anticipating good sales and it has spent a lot on marketing/pre publicity. Some of this publicity may generate sales eg Judy of Richard and Judy praising the book.  And has Lorraine kelly yet suggested it should win the Booker prize?  She could do it, which would be hilarious as that prize is for fiction.

My concern is that whoever is really behind this will stop at nothing to discredit those who critisise the book and one way to do this is to organise 5 star book reviews.  New reviews may push older (critical) ones off the screen.

So I urge wlbts and others who have read it to review it.

Antonia wrote:
So I urge wlbts and others who have read it to review it.

Will be doing that shortly, both here and on Amazon

A thought that has just occurred to me is that writing this book before the investigation has finished makes no sense. Surely a book about the investigation when it has completed - whatever the conclusion - would sell more copies, and have something new to say. What is the point of (selectively) rehashing information from the public domain right now?

I have absolutely no doubt about the real purpose of this book. I'm guessing that the idea for the book began at almost exactly the same time as Operation Grange began its investigation. I believe that the purpose of this book is to replace the awful 'Book of Kate', which was horribly misjudged.

Create enough doubt, and if the evidence is not strong enough you can avoid conviction.

And that is a very good review in itself wlbts.

Haha, but they maybe being sold in their thousands in Waterstones, whoops sorry meant Poundland

One sentence in the book that I found interesting:

'Amateur anaesthesia can kill.'

In which context was that?

I was about to ask the same thing.

There were a couple of professional anaesthetists there if I recall correctly!

Having known a number of doctors privately [I nearly married one once ...], I can tell you that they tend to take risky decisions sometimes for their family and themselves.
It stands to reason, that - at least in the Netherlands - doctors are NOT supposed to treat their own.

It was the last sentence of a couple of paragraphs discussing Kate's suspicion that the children had been sedated, same stuff we've all heard a hundred times already. The text is quite clear that this was an abductor doing the sedating, no suggestion that anybody closer to home took part.

Taking my previous point a step further - why not wait until the investigation has been completed to create doubt?  There's a simple answer to that one - there just wouldn't be time to get a book out.  So it has to be done now, without knowing the outcome of the investigation.  Which is why I believe Redwood is keeping his cards very close to his chest - as should every investigating officer - to deny the McCanns and their legal team the opportunity to develop reasonable doubt, or at least, minimize that opportunity.

The book is not going to make any money.  Surely the only purpose it could possibly serve is to influence the outcome of a trial.  To us, the book is the same old rubbish we've been reading for years.  But to a jury it will look genuine enough to create doubt, and the prosecution would have a tough job on their hands countering it.

I have to say that this book seems to me like an act of desperation.

I have read all the literature published so far, to help me find out what probably happened to Madeleine, so I guess I should read this in order to be certain of what issues have not been addressed [ I have a very good idea, based on the intro which did not point to the starting point of an open mind, then through analysis and hard research with cross referencing knowns with claims, reaching a logical conclusion]

I will post my review under the name of zhivago, which is the name I used to post my review of Kate's book.

wlbts wrote:It was the last sentence of a couple of paragraphs discussing Kate's suspicion that the children had been sedated, same stuff we've all heard a hundred times already.  The text is quite clear that this was an abductor doing the sedating, no suggestion that anybody closer to home took part.

I always find it amazing how some people can believe that an unknown abductor would be well organised enough to arrive with drugs to sedate the child they planned to steal (and possibly enough for her two siblings as well, according to Kate). Yet this abductor was also so dim that he then paraded through the streets of Praia da Luz with the child in his arms, rather than parking in the car park conveniently located by the apartment's front door, from where he could discreetly place his prey in the boot or back seat?

Popcorn wrote:
I always find it amazing how some people can believe that an unknown abductor would be well organised enough to arrive with drugs to sedate the child they planned to steal (and possibly enough for her two siblings as well, according to Kate). Yet this abductor was also so dim that he then paraded through the streets of Praia da Luz with the child in his arms, rather than parking in the car park conveniently located by the apartment's front door, from where he could discreetly place his prey in the boot or back seat?

And having been a good boy scout, that abductor was so embarrassingly well prepared that he used sedatives that don't leave any noticeable odour. Because the abductor wouldn't want anybody to notice later on that Madeleine had gone ... doh!

Those same paragraphs also mention Kate's musings that the abductor might have been in for a practice run on the Wednesday.

And the book says all this as if it makes perfect sense.

I`m including a link to Richard Philips` review - he`s gradually going through the book chapter by chapter :-

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

I`m not sure if it`s permissable to copy and paste each chapter here.

Chapter 2 analysis now available.
http://my-mccann-thoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/chapter-2-detail.html
Thank you again Richard Phillips.

Nice one D. Here it is for those who don't do links.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Chapter 2 detail
Detailed review of Chapter 2.

The chapter starts with the group of friends rushing back to the apartment and an explanation of why Kate said the words "they've taken her", by paragraph three we are back to Kate in the apartment alone doing her check, paragraph 4 has David Payne's impression of Kate as she entered the tapas bar. To say that the start of chapter 2 is disjointed and confused is an understatement! It does settle down into a description of the early searches by the tapas group.

There is a strange and seemingly unnecessary criticism of Portuguese officials before a section explaining how the police were called. This section fails to address one of the important unexplained facts of the case: namely :-who decided to call the police, when & why. The authors accurately describe the OC receptionist hearing from staff in the tapas restaurant that a little girl was missing. They say the receptionist called the police at once. These events are recalled in the OC staff statements to the police. The authors describe Oldfield (one of the tapas 7) going to the OC reception and having a surreal conversation trying to persuade them to call the police. The authors do not mention that the OC receptionist does not mention this conversation in their statement, nor does anyone mention directly telling the tapas staff that Madeleine was missing or that it was necessary for the police to be called.
A few paragraphs later after a section about searches and nanny's the authors mention that the McCann's were frantic about why the police hadn't arrived and Oldfield went back to the reception this time with Gerry McCann. The OC receptionist statement shows that he remembers Gerry coming to the reception after the initial call was made and that he then made a second call timed just 11 minutes after the first call.

If you are a bit confused by this it isn't surprising. The authors seem to have deliberately tried to confuse the question of the calls to the police while at the same time having a completely out of context swipe at some Portuguese officials. The involvement of Matthew Oldfield in attempts to call the police is, at the very least, doubtful.

Careful reading of statements and phone record logs in the official published PJ files reveals the following.

1. Tapas bar staff realised because of the commotion and searching that a child was missing on the resort.

2. Of their own initiative they phoned the OC reception to relate this news.

3. The OC reception immediately phoned the police. This call was logged in phone records as being made at 22.41. (The statement of the receptionist says it was between 21.30 and 22.00. Given that it seems likely the alarm was not raised till 22.00 and the call to the GNR was logged at 22.41 it seems likely the time in the statement is out by 1hr)

4. A few minutes later Gerry McCann and another man, possibly Matthew Oldfield, but the receptionist states it was John Hill, arrived at reception. (It is unlikely that the receptionist would mistake Matthew Oldfield for John Hill because Mr Hill was the OC manager. John Hill states that he did go to reception around this time but it appears that he went alone or at least was not with Gerry McCann)

5. The receptionist made a second phone call to the GNR. This call was logged in phone records as being made at 22.52.


At this point I would like to ask the authors why they have written a record of the calls made to the GNR that does not agree with at least some of the statements in the official police files. Particularly with statements made by the person who actually made the calls. I would have expected them to at least highlight the doubt that exists over this matter rather than state as fact something that is at best doubtful.

The chapter continues to describe what happened after the GNR (police) arrived at the apartment. The authors are again selective in their choice of quotes from statements selecting things that support the suggestion that Madeleine had been abducted while ignoring quotes that might give the opposite impression. This strikes me as dishonest.

For example they quote GNR officer Roque. Here is the passage from the book: 'Roque noted that the bedclothes on Madeleine's bed seemed "too tidy". It appeared, he thought "that she had been picked up from or had left the bed with great care. There was a mark on the sheet that appeared to be made by a child's body"'. To me this reads as if the officer felt that the scene was that of a child abduction.

However the full quote from officer Roque's statement is:-

"During the search he did not find anything strange apart from the bedclothes on Madeleine's bed, which were too tidy, it appeared that she had been picked up from or had left the bed with great care. There was a mark on the sheet that appeared to be made by a child's body."

To me this has a slightly different tone. He found the bedclothes "strange", "it appeared she had been picked up or left the bed with great care", the "mark" "appeared to be made by a child's body". Perhaps I am wrong, but he says a little later in the same statement:

"He found the parents to be nervous and anxious, he did not see any tears from either of them although they produced noises identical to crying. He did not feel that this was an abduction, although this was the line indicated by the father."

Of course officer Roque could have been quite wrong in his opinion, but that is not the point. Summers and Swan have been dishonestly selective in the quotes they have used. They appear to be trying to create a specific impression for the reader rather than present accurate facts.

The rest of the chapter proceeds in similar vein. The impression given is of distraught parents, frantic searching, and incompetent police. As someone who has studied the case I know that some of the criticism of the police is justified & I have no doubt the scene was chaotic and confused. However earlier dishonesty by the authors and the one sided tone of the narrative lead me to doubt whether this really is an impartial account, but things do improve a bit towards the end of the chapter.

There is an interesting section about the various attempts to contact the press. One of the first two PJ officers to arrive told them "No media!" but was told Sky News had already been contacted (perhaps unsuccessfully). The authors relate that attempts by the group to contact the press began quite early, probably before 03.00, and continued in spite of the PJ's request for "No media!".

There is also a section about attempts to locate a priest and the fact that finding a priest seemed very important particularly to Kate. It is related that even when a priest in Liverpool was called and spoken to on the telephone Kate still wanted a local priest to be found.

A few paragraphs on and we are told that beds were made up in the Payne's apartment for them to lay down and rest if not actually sleep. We are also told that at this time, about 04.30, Gerry knew about Jane Tanners sighting but had not yet told Kate.

These sections do not portray the McCann's in a good light. Several attempts to contact the press against police instructions, attempts to find a priest and anger that one could not be found, and attempts to sleep or rest while others searched for their daughter. Finally the fact that a friend and also her husband withheld information from Kate about a possible sighting of an abductor.

The chapter ends with the word paedophile. Used in the context of Gerry talking to his sister Patricia about what might have happened. I found this a little unnecessary. This is meant to be an unbiased truthful account, not a pulp fiction page turner.

However I finished the chapter with my hope of an impartial account somewhat revived. Many things are omitted from this account of the hours 22.00 - 07.30 , but I live in hope that the authors will tackle them in later chapters.

wlbts wrote:Taking my previous point a step further - why not wait until the investigation has been completed to create doubt?  There's a simple answer to that one - there just wouldn't be time to get a book out.  So it has to be done now, without knowing the outcome of the investigation.  Which is why I believe Redwood is keeping his cards very close to his chest - as should every investigating officer - to deny the McCanns and their legal team the opportunity to develop reasonable doubt, or at least, minimize that opportunity.

The book is not going to make any money.  Surely the only purpose it could possibly serve is to influence the outcome of a trial.  To us, the book is the same old rubbish we've been reading for years.  But to a jury it will look genuine enough to create doubt, and the prosecution would have a tough job on their hands countering it.

I have to say that this book seems to me like an act of desperation.

I agree this book is an act of desperation. In my opinion, there is a small, hard core, of people working proactively to give the McCanns a squeaky clean reputation and reinforce their victimhood. It may prove to be the foundation of any future 'the parents are innocent' campaign. From the word go, the McCanns have carried this case along on a huge wave of public support. It worked phenomenally in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, and they have kept an active publicity department to keep it going ever since, though not quite successfully.

I see this book, as the latest in a long line of smellymen, binmen, prowlers, burglars etc, another story planted by the McCann media machine to keep the supporters (whats left of them) onside. In the early days Kate foresaw rioting in the streets in they were arrested - the public simply wouldn't stand for it! They continue to claim mass support by buying ridiculous numbers of 'likes' every time the webmaster (Kate) puts up a post. Their 'mass' support is as fake as the abduction story.

Cristobell wrote:
I agree this book is an act of desperation.  In my opinion, there is a small, hard core, of people working proactively to give the McCanns a squeaky clean reputation and reinforce their victimhood.  It may prove to be the foundation of any future 'the parents are innocent' campaign. From the word go, the McCanns have carried this case along on a huge wave of public support.  It worked phenomenally in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, and they have kept an active publicity department to keep it going ever since, though not quite successfully.

I see this book, as the latest in a long line of smellymen, binmen, prowlers, burglars etc, another story planted by the McCann media machine to keep the supporters (whats left of them) onside.  In the early days Kate foresaw rioting in the streets in they were arrested - the public simply wouldn't stand for it!  They continue to claim mass support by buying ridiculous numbers of 'likes' every time the webmaster (Kate) puts up a post.  Their 'mass' support is as fake as the abduction story.  

The book simply collates all of those ridiculous stories into one volume, it doesn't add anything new.

And if the investigation is a whitewash and this book is a part of it, that stretches the bounds of credibility. The book would come after the investigation, to tell us all exactly how innocent the McCanns were after all.

wlbts wrote:

Cristobell wrote:
I agree this book is an act of desperation.  In my opinion, there is a small, hard core, of people working proactively to give the McCanns a squeaky clean reputation and reinforce their victimhood.  It may prove to be the foundation of any future 'the parents are innocent' campaign. From the word go, the McCanns have carried this case along on a huge wave of public support.  It worked phenomenally in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, and they have kept an active publicity department to keep it going ever since, though not quite successfully.

I see this book, as the latest in a long line of smellymen, binmen, prowlers, burglars etc, another story planted by the McCann media machine to keep the supporters (whats left of them) onside.  In the early days Kate foresaw rioting in the streets in they were arrested - the public simply wouldn't stand for it!  They continue to claim mass support by buying ridiculous numbers of 'likes' every time the webmaster (Kate) puts up a post.  Their 'mass' support is as fake as the abduction story.  

The book simply collates all of those ridiculous stories into one volume, it doesn't add anything new.

And if the investigation is a whitewash and this book is a part of it, that stretches the bounds of credibility.  The book would come after the investigation, to tell us all exactly how innocent the McCanns were after all.

Absolutely with you on that WLBTS! They would have waited for the investigation to end when they would have had a guaranteed bestseller if the McCanns were found innocent. Also, as Blacksmith pointed out, if they had anything new or anything of substance from SY pointing to the McCanns' innocent, they would have included it. This is a rush job before the result of the investigation is known.

Oh dear, just saw the S and S follow on twitter list. The esteemed duo follow Barbara1957 and Father Jack. That's their credibility gone for me !

They also follow the vile fanatic Tigerloaf of the hateful stuff about Cristobell.

Here is a brilliant reply by Vten to a "5*" post by "Tim Buckley" on Amazon. I wonder who Vten is? He can certainly write. (Sorry about the length but it is worth reading)


2 of 6 people found the following review helpful
See your doctor - not a quack., 16 Sep 2014
By Tim Buckley
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Edition)
Once upon a time - a long time ago - my brother went missing. He was 5 or so. My parents were more and more desperate every 5 minutes but after 2 hours he was found, safe and sound.
We hear about so many desperately tragic stories involving abductions. The ones about children are of course the most harrowing. They are supposed to be our future and futures are not supposed be cut short. If it is through "God's will" it's difficult enough...
The Madeleine McCann disappearance is the most highlighted one in our time. Plenty of other similar stories do not at all reach our attention, or at most to a small extend. The parent's heartbreak in all these unknown stories is obviously no less than that of the McCann's.
In today's world of mass media and super fast spread of information and opinion, it is inevitable that unchecked facts and moronic opinions find their way faster than light to those who are receptive to them. In communities similar things happen in the case of witch hunts (we all know about McCarthy-ism) - where ignorance and unchecked facts could lead to the demise of innocent people and the world of medicine - where 10 quacks have more treatments than one proper doctor can ever dream up. Quackery is a business still practised by many and making victims everywhere. The victims are receptive... some of them are even considered intelligent.
I choose not to be treated by a quack. I also choose not to listen to the quacks in the world of politics and crime. I choose to believe that Elvis is really dead and that the US Government was not secretly behind the attack on the Twin Towers. I have no time for attention seekers and mad conspiracy theorists. And I am grateful that our hospitals in general are filled with good, well-educated doctors and not with quacks.
If only the same standards applied to the world of publishing and its mirror world of reviews, where well-educated, serious and commended writers can be lambasted by the "Ignoranti" and journalistic quacks, because they dared write about "Maddie" and either dismiss or disagree - implicitly - with "quack-ist" opinions and theories.
I got this book because since I read "Official & Confidential: The Secret Life of J Edgar Hoover" and "The Eleventh Day", I am impressed with Summers and Swan.
They are the journalistic equivalent of proper doctors and not Quacks. That's why I got "Looking for Madeleine".
However, I don't do Idolatry either, so while I have great admiration for the team, I don't rate this a 5 star book automatically. I do however believe that anyone who is genuinely interested in how the whole workings of various authorities can hamper the efficient investigation a dramatic case, should buy this book.
Just don't expect the proper doctors to come up with a quack's solution to the disappearance.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
Report abuse | Permalink


Comments
Track comments by e-mail
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-1 of 1 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 16 Sep 2014 17:18:42 BDT
Vten says:
Well, Tim Buckley, I almost felt like a proud father hearing 'Hallelujah' sung for the first time when I read your review.

It certainly was eye-opening and provokes some serious thought.

I was so impressed, in fact, that I went looking to see what else you've reviewed in order to find out what you think on other topics.

Funny thing though...

Not only did I notice that the only reviews in your collection were dated two days ago, including reviews for a number of books which are far older than this week's 'hot topic' titles, but I also noticed that they didn't say very much. In fact, they didn't mention any detail at all. None. Excise them from all connection to the titles they are associated with, and they're surprisingly generic... almost like the person writing them hadn't actually read them, certainly never connected with them, and was trying to make it sound to the rest of the English class and the teacher that he'd been doing his homework and had lots of good thoughts about what he'd read.

This was especially a nice touch, that instead of writing your own review for one title you, only two days ago, read through some other reviews for it, found one which was two years old, and then posted a comment which said in paraphrase 'I don't need to write my own review for this, because I agree with everything this reviewer said.'

I won't think too deeply about the interesting review for the outdated, underpowered and decidedly average computer that you paid over the odds for at the weekend after your own computer 'exploded' on your desk the weekend previous, but I'm glad that when you ordered it that weekend, it only took until Tuesday to arrive. I do appreciate Amazon's rapid delivery service almost as much as I appreciate their honest reviewers.

Thankfully I have strong faith in humanity, because certainly any lesser person than I might begin to think that you had arranged to write this most detailed 'glowing report' on this title by agenda, and that in order to not get trimmed by Amazon when the pruning of the trolls goes down, you had concocted some fake reviews in order to look like an active participant in the Amazon Review community.

Clearly that cannot be the case, and so I welcome your comments, because I too have a story...

I was present, much more recently than 'long ago', when a child in my holiday group went missing. They didn't go missing from an unattended apartment. They didn't go missing from childcare facilities. Their parents were very present when they vanished. They were included in all the family activities, watched like a hawk throughout, and their parents didn't go out eating, drinking and attending quiz night while they cried themselves to sleep every night, alone and in an unsecured apartment in a strange holiday resort. They actually didn't go missing in anything resembling avoidable circumstances, or as a result of anything resembling neglect. Instead, they darted the wrong direction in a crowded place, letting go of the hand they were holding on to, and became disorientated and wandered further and further, looking to objects and locations that piqued their interest. Thankfully they were found a few minutes later, safe and sound. Curiously, their mum and dad cannot stop telling people, months on, how guilty they felt for that moment of lapse, and how they would never again be lacking in vigilance. But then, their mum and dad also insist on having family meals, family activities, keeping babysitters to a minimum, and being present all the time on family holidays. The one thing that couple, my friends, do not do is look at the McCann's and say 'it's only sheer luck that we're not just like them today... oh there but for the grace of God...'

I'll tell you what else...

When that child disappeared, no one screamed... no one threw a tantrum... no one began immediately ringing the press in another country... no one rang the foreign office... no one even screamed for the police to come... no one shouted 'the f****** b******* have taken her', no one began pointing in random directions and claiming that some stranger must have spirited them away... Know why? Because in the moment of shock, disbelief kicks in. The brain, courtesy of the flow of adrenaline and other hormones, prompts the 'fight or flight' mode, which is universally acknowledged as utterly precluding calculations, elaborate reckonings, wild hypothesising, and theorising - all of which take time. Instead what is provoked is the most basic reaction of all... to look, personally, for YOUR child, as YOUR responsibility, in YOUR charge, as if YOU and YOU ALONE had the ONLY hope and duty of finding that child. It takes several moments of burning the adrenaline and diluting the other hormones and calming the heart rate before you're even capable of something more, something which does not come as a 'reaction' but as a 'realisation' (a process of rationality, not impulse) - that something is very wrong, cannot be solved imminently, has utterly escaped your control, and you need help.

To further highlight just how true to profile this accounting of reactions actually is, it is common policy of most Western police departments to be wary of, and not panicked by the frantic finger pointing and theorising of parents and guardians, whether they are agonised in their fear or not, and to allow a due process to take place by which hysterical and knee-jerk reactions and overblown responses (call out the helicopters, close the borders, 'they' could be getting away) are avoided UNLESS there is evidence, physical or eyewitness, which highlights a scenario of abduction. Why? Because the vast majority of children which parents would report as 'missing' are either found not far away, unharmed and wandered, or are in the custody of someone close to them and known to the parents, as was the case earlier this year in Australia, and as, it seems, was the case of 'Daniel' in Portugal earlier this year in an instance which was heralded by the media as 'the New Maddie.'

Now... to the commentary on the book.

You make frequent reference to 'unchecked facts' and 'moronic opinions.' The material that you're referring to is also known as the 'Case File' belonging to the Portuguese Policia Judicia. It is a matter of public record and freely available. Frankly, if those 'facts' are not checked and valid, then there are actually NO facts for the authors of this book to write anything based on, since all that will be left is the opinions of the parents, their friends, and a whole lot of people who weren't there, but have vested interests in claiming to be authorities on what took place.

Herein lies the enigma. Without the detail of what was reported to Portuguese police, you have nothing. Nothing, that is, except for British parents with a child missing, who say that she went missing in Portugal in a resort, but you would have only their word and that of their friends that they were ever there... If you're going to accept SOME of the objective facts reported to the Portuguese police in their investigation, then you have to accept ALL of what is reported in that investigation. You can't take some, and not others, because to do so means that you have to have a standard of choosing which states 'I reject X because the people with the most to lose say I should reject it' and 'I accept Y because the people with the most to gain say I should accept it.' If those police files aren't the sum total of every material fact known about this case, then nothing is. There's nothing to work from.

The authors acknowledge this, but they don't like its implications. The parents acknowledge this, but they don't like its implications. Neither of them have contended that the material in the police files is false. Neither dispute that what Kate and Gerry and others reported to the police, or saw collected and taken from their property, or watched being removed from their rental home, is not real nor accurately recorded in the police files. They just have a reaction to the conclusions that the evidence leads objective, intelligent detectives to reach. In fact, the ONLY conclusion that CAN be reached considering all the available evidence.

So any counter argument against this book which stems from questions presented by the Policia Judicia Case Files is not 'unchecked facts and moronic opinions.' They're a matter of police record and the subject of extensive analytical consideration, arriving at a conclusion which is both predictable, high in likelihood and probability, and an oft-repeated, globally recognised 'principal profile' for the cause of such occurrences. It is, in short, love it or loathe it, the most statistically supportable likelihood in every modern nation on earth. Einstein said that insanity was defined as doing the same things repeatedly and expecting a different outcome. It would be insanity for any police force to actually expect the most likely scenario and the most evidentially supported scenario to be the least likely conclusion. Their experience tells them that.

That's not speculation, nor quackery.

Now... you talk about how you read this book - and believe it - because you hate conspiracy theorists and the 'quacks' who promote them, and you cite the good journalistic authorship of this book. You comment that you appreciate an author who affirms that the US Government was not secretly behind 9.11 (Summers) and you appreciated the Summers volume on J Edgar Hoover. Did you read Summers' most critically acclaimed book, the one that earned him his kudos? The one he wrote defying the official government story, and claiming that JFK died as the result of a massive conspiracy theory - a conspiracy theory which many claim is 'quackery?' A conspiracy theory that many would claim Summers is a quack for writing in support of?

Do you realise, for example, that 'conspiracy theorists' claimed that the Reichstag fire was staged, that the attack on Pearl Harbour was known to be imminent and not reacted against, that Hillsborough was covered up, that Jimmy Saville and a number of high-level establishment pedophiles including MP's were routinely and massively abusing children in the care home system, that there was never any WMD in Iraq and that the Watergate Affair was an inside job?

Do you feel more enlightened, academic and authoritative by rejecting and living in ignorance of anything that such 'conspiracy theorists' and 'quacks' say?

Personally, I'd rather not be spoonfed my information or my opinions by any 'sacred cows' of journalism in single 'definitive' volumes. I'd rather use my brain and decide for myself where the evidence leads and whether the people who make the details of the evidence, not the generalisms of the condensed and abridged summative the central topic of discussion, and I'd hope other readers do too.

Glad you enjoyed it, though. Most people would have read your comments and concluded that you'd barely read past the index, or that curiously you already knew what it was that the book said, as if by psychic impression. Obviously I wouldn't begin to imagine you were as underhand and deceitful as that.

I mean... that would be like telling people you'd written the definitive book, even though you left out most of the details and failed to mention that you weren't legally allowed to write any other, without fearing being sued.
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customer
0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you? Thank you for your feedback.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›