Madeleine McCann Books

[quote="wlbts"

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.[/quote]

A point I hadn't even thought of.

And I agree with all. Vten's analyses are searing. I'll be quite interested to see how the pro's dismiss him/her. (Which they undoubtedly will).

Oops - looks like they forgot to run their spelling and grammar checks as well as their evidence-based research checks.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anthony-Summers-Robbyn-Swan/108905915872218?fref=ts

This is a link to their page for anyone who's on Facebook.

The spelling of "repeat" has been corrected but not "furore". The general style and grammar though is an improvement on that in their book!

@Andrew 11.27am.

Oh wow thank you for posting that.

I'm currently in upheaval negotiating a move from Spain to Wales so can't keep up.

I said elsewhere here tonight that Vten's posts are searing. I don't need to know who the person is, I simply need them to continue to deconstruct the pro idiots in this cool, clinical way.

It's an utter madness.

So glad I'm not on Twitter or Facebook but all Hail to Vten.

Please keep updating.

@Andrew 11.27am.

Oh wow thank you for posting that.

I'm currently in upheaval negotiating a move from Spain to Wales so can't keep up.

I said elsewhere here tonight that Vten's posts are searing. I don't need to know who the person is, I simply need them to continue to deconstruct the pro idiots in this cool, clinical way.

It's an utter madness.

So glad I'm not on Twitter or Facebook but all Hail to Vten.

Please keep updating.

I have received my copy of the book and note that S and S have posted their upset at the Amazon reviews on their FB page. Have asked them on twitter if there is a problem with my copy and for other readers to assist me if there is.....no evidence if any footnotes or a bibliography. For a book on a crime, especially the alleged definitive account, not to quickly and easily point the reader to sources which would show the accuracy of what S and S have written, is in my experience, unheard of.
For my 2 postgrad degrees I had to spend a hell of a lot of time with footnotes, an extensive bibliography and appendices, without which I was told my theses would not even be given a cursory skim-read.

I await a reply from S and S.

Still maintain that there is no reading needed beyond their author's note, which sets out their stall at the outset and which uses an imaginary dramatic device of an onlooker's vantage point in the vicinity of 5a to speak of an undetected movement of a human in the dark. An invention and so a fiction in a work of non-fiction. Is there any witness statement describing this? Undetected by the tapas group ? I would expect to find another witness stating that at some time between 8.30 and 10 p.m. he /she saw this shadowy figure in the area of apartment block 5. Have never read one.

btw, Amazon lists very few sales. Given this book seems to be priced lowest there, I wonder how many have been sold in the likes of the supermarkets[ I expect some sales given their competitive pricing] or less likely, Waterstones and other bookshops?

dantezebu wrote:Tweets from S&S today. They must be desperate for positive reviews.

Summers & Swan ‏@summersandswan  28m
Welcome praise. #madeleinemccann Madeleine - Exposing the Myths: Looking for Madeleine,new book .... http://exposingthemyths.blogspot.com/2014/09/looking-for-madeleine-new-book-about.html?spref=tw …
Expand Reply  Retweet  Favorite   More

Summers & Swan ‏@summersandswan  31m
"Madeleine Exposing the Myths" blog calls bk "Looking for Madeleine" "an excellent piece of work...definitive." #Madeleinemccann

omg have just read back through this thread. Please, please don't tell me that S and S went anywhere near STM for their source material?


S and S follow fatherjack@urcrazytoo and barbara1957 on twitter : their agenda is clear.

What a load of tripe with a big dollop of tosh that they have written on their Facebook thingymejig.

Disgraceful. It really is.

Kaya wrote:

Admin

Kaya, could you start a new thread and name it Book Review please. 

Here you go Candyfloss


Page 1. 


"Books on the origin of names say that "Madeleine" means "Tower of strength" - probably from the Aramaic word signifying "tower", "Elevated" or "Magnificent". It is a variation of "Magdelene", the Mary Magdelene who - the Gospels say - bravely stood by Jesus to the last. It is perhaps no coincidence that Madeleine's mother is a devout Catholic"

I think this book should be called St Kate 2

Not very good researchers then, are they. It comes from the Hebrew word Migdal, meaning "a tower". Should have just gone down to the nearest Synagogue and just asked anybody there who can read prayer-book Hebrew.

dantezebu wrote:Tweets from S&S today. They must be desperate for positive reviews.

Summers & Swan ‏@summersandswan  28m
Welcome praise. #madeleinemccann Madeleine - Exposing the Myths: Looking for Madeleine,new book .... http://exposingthemyths.blogspot.com/2014/09/looking-for-madeleine-new-book-about.html?spref=tw …
Expand Reply  Retweet  Favorite   More

Summers & Swan ‏@summersandswan  31m
"Madeleine Exposing the Myths" blog calls bk "Looking for Madeleine" "an excellent piece of work...definitive." #Madeleinemccann

I'm gobsmacked that they can even breathe on their own, never mind read a book.

Part 2.

PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB now
"Looking for Madeleine by Summers and Swan: A Book Review by Pat Brown - Part Two #McCann http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2014/09/looking-for-madeleine-by-summers-and_18.html …

Latest of many non-fiction books I have read : [complex crime ]


list of main characters : 2 pages.

notes on abbreviations to be used : 1 page

footnotes : 10 pages

appendices[4] : 30 pages

bibliography : 10 pages.


some or all of the above [ certainly the last 3 on the list] should be part of a work of non-fiction.

I would not like to guess at the list for any books about the Kennedy assassination !

If you have time, look at who S and S follow on twitter, some of the craziest pro McCanners and some foul- mouthed woman from Ireland, Maria McCann. What little credibility they have/ had is shot to pieces now. OH DEAR !

I don't do Twitter but it's interesting to hear of the characters that are there.

Perhaps dear old Maria McCann is one of the many Irish relatives that the McCanns supposedly have and visit at regular intervals!

As for the Jewish origins of the name Madeleine, I have heard that Summers and Swan are of Jewish origin which, if true - and I don't know if it is - makes their error harder to understand.

Russian Doll, do S & S follow any of the McCann doubters?

As top investigative journalists surely they should follow both camps to aid them in getting the definitive story?

http://www.newstalk.ie/player/listen_back/13240/12861/17th_September_2014_-_The_Pat_Kenny_Show_Part_3

I don't think this link to an interview with the new Dynamic Duo has yet been posted.

I have to admit that I haven't heard it yet but, from what people have told me, it's pretty dreadful.

P.S. I could only get to the first 7 minutes before running round screaming so I'll have to wait for someone else to sum up the rest of it.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Chapter 5 (Sorry it's quite long)
Before I begin:-

The final paragraph of chapter 4 hinted at what is to come in chapter 5 namely the stories of bogus charity collectors and others operating in and around Praia da Luz in 2007.

I doubt that anyone will be shocked when I say that holiday resorts attract all sorts of petty criminals the world over. People are usually less careful with their money and possessions on holiday. People on holiday tip more often and more generously and are more likely to donate to causes and give cash to beggars. Petty criminals seek to exploit this relaxed behavior.

So I am really hoping that once I have read this chapter I will find that the authors have found something that actually links the reports of petty criminals etc to the McCann case.

Chapter 5

We start with tourist Gail Cooper. The authors describe information given to the police by Ms Cooper.

During this description they say:

"She had found him 'pushy', somewhat 'intimidating', and he made her feel 'very uncomfortable'.

Here is what Ms Cooper actually said in her police statement:

"This person was very pushy and seemed intimidating but he was not threatening however he did make me feel very uncomfortable and did not appear to be Portuguese and his English was very good."

So the man was not threatening, but was pushy, seemed intimidating and did make her feel uncomfortable. Not very different from the S&S account, but why leave out the fact that she said he was not threatening?

The authors go on to say that Gail Cooper thought she remembered seeing him on two other occasions, both times on the beach on one of these occasions he was walking behind a group of children who might have been from the OC creche. This all sounds very interesting. A dodgy character was following children from the OC creche. However the truth turns out to be a bit different.

Gail Cooper's statement to the PJ on 21st May 2007 makes no mention of seeing the man near the beach. Nor of seeing him following children or of the possibility that the children were from the OC creche.

A quick study of the official PJ files, surely Summers & Swan looked at these, reveals that Gail Coopers daughter gave her mothers phone number to the Daily Mirror who then contacted Gail Cooper. She gave them the same version that was in her original statement to the PJ. Gail Coopers daughter on seeing the article in the Daily Mirror then reminded her mother that they thought they had seen the man on other occasions. Having been reminded by her daughter she then gave a statement to Leicestershire police in which she describes the other occasions she thinks she saw the man.

Here is an extract from that statement:

"As I watched the children I saw a male walking behind them. He was approximately 10 ? 15 yards away from where I was sitting. He didn?t really do anything, he was just walking behind them and I initially thought he was with the group, but as they got to the beach he turned right towards where I was along the promenade area. He did not stay with the children at all."

Here is another talking about the same incident:

"He was only in my view for a matter of seconds, but I had a clear unobstructed view of him and the weather was bright and sunny. I saw about three quarters of his face as he walked by, he did not face me full on, but I saw more of his face than just looking at his side profile.

I even commented to my daughter P**** that it was the same man who I had spoken to at the villa."

Here is a third talking about the second time she thinks she saw the man, this time on the beach:

"I can recall that on Friday 20th April about 1 or 2 o?clock I was sitting on the beach front again at P da L. This was just before the man came to the villa later on that day. I was sitting at the bar Paraiso. It faces out onto the sea and is near to the bar Habana I mentioned earlier. I was with my friends Trudy and L** Dawkins, my husband, Trudy?s daughter and son. It was raining on this particular day and I recall seeing a man walking alone on the beach. I thought it strange because of the weather. He was only in my sight for a few seconds, and was some distance away. I could not fully see his face but as I have sat and thought about the suspicious man, I feel sure that this is the same man I saw at the villa and again on the beach on Sunday."


So her actual statements to the police tell a rather different story to the one presented by S&S. Here is what I think is a fair summary of the facts she has communicated in her statements to the police.

1. A man who spoke good English and did not seem to be Portuguese came to her holiday villa and tried to persuade her to give money to an orphanage.

2. The man was pushy and seemed intimidating, but was not threatening. He made her feel uncomfortable.

3. A third party says the man did not stop at the next house.

4. She may have seen the man standing in the rain on the beach a few hours before he visited her holiday villa.

5. She may have seen the man a few days later walking behind a group of children for a few yards before taking a different route.

That is it. That is what Gail Cooper has told us. Could this man be connected with Madeleine's disappearance? Maybe, but nothing Gail Cooper has told us suggests that he was connected in any way. I have belaboured the point about Gail Coopers evidence because I want to illustrate just how easy it is to present a distorted impression by being selective when examining evidence as Summers and Swan have already done several times so far in this book.

Next the authors discuss the account of Paul Gordon another tourist, one who stayed in the same apartment as the McCann's in the week before the McCann's arrived.
Mr Gordon also recalls having a visitor who claimed to be collecting for an orphanage. The authors accurately state that this was almost certainly a different man to the one seen by Gail Cooper, the descriptions do not match and the man was polite and not persistent. Here the authors are very dishonest. They say :

"Unlike Mrs Cooper's visitor, he was polite, not aggressive or persistent."

This suggests Mrs Cooper's visitor was "aggressive", a word that she did not use to describe him in her statements to the police. What possible reason could S&S have for being so misleading?

The reference to Mr Gordon in the book is brief and appears to be used to provide a link between apartment 5a and the bogus charity collectors. Clearly there is a link, but it is hard to see what connection there might be to the McCann case. Perhaps that will become clear later in the chapter or book.

Now the authors describe other similar incidents all of which happened on 03.05.2007, the day Madeleine disappeared. They say:

"As many as four more such efforts to collect money are reported to have occurred- all of them late afternoon of the very day 3rd May, that Madeleine was to vanish."

and go on to describe:

1. Rex & Iris Morgan Reported in January 2008 that 2 men asked for money for a hostel or hospice at 16.00 in the afternoon of 03.05.2007.

2. Denise Ashton Reported in May 2007 2 men asked for money at about 17.00 on 03.05.2007

3. ????????

4. ????????

A question for Summers and Swan Where are the other two examples?

Once again it appears that the authors are being dishonest. They have presented 4 examples of bogus charity collectors, but only two were on the afternoon of 3rd May. The other two incidents covered in the book occurred a week or so earlier. All the incidents of bogus charity collections mentioned by S&S so far are recorded in the official PJ files.

Next Summers and Swan speculate that these bogus charity collectors were really burglars trying to find out whether properties were occupied or not. As far as I can tell there is no evidence to suggest that these men were in fact burglars. Summers and Swan certainly do not provide any such evidence in this chapter. They quote Goncalo Amaral's comments that burglaries are not rare in holiday season & then go on to say that there "was in fact a veritable epidemic of burglary in Praia da Luz in 2007". I read on eagerly, anticipating official crime statistics and perhaps a few examples to illustrate the nature of these crimes.

Sadly I am disappointed. No official crime statistics. Instead we are told that:

"In the first four months of 2007, according to a briefing issued during the later British probe into the Madeleine case, there was a fourfold increase in burglaries in the area."

Well that is something, but what is it? Who issued the briefing? When was it issued? What "later British probe"? Is the "British probe" operation grange? If so when did they issue this briefing & how did Summers & Swan see it or hear it? If not then who carried out this probe? Was it one of the McCann's hired PI's ? What is the "area" in which the fourfold increase occurred? The Algarve? Praia da Luz? Portugal? The Iberian peninsula? Southern Europe? Surely the figures issued in the "briefing" were based on some actual statistics so why didn't the authors chase down and check the source of these statistics? Without the source, or at least some more information, it is impossible to accept what the authors clearly state : "There was in fact a veritable epidemic of burglary in Praia da Luz in 2007".

Next we are treated to "Residents' concern was reflected by postings like this on the Expatforum website:"
"Mar, 23 Luz area........Sitting in the lounge watching Deal or No Deal (around 4.30 p.m.) while burglar got in kitchen, took handbag left on table and we did not hear a thing. Only one shutter was open, door was locked,window was closed...... No signs of break-in. Second villa to be burgled this week"

Very sad for the people involved, but really? Come on, this book is supposed to be definitive, well researched etc. "Mar 23" which year? "Luz area" how close? & most importantly this is a post from an internet forum not a police report or statement. Is that the best example S&S could find to illustrate their point?

Next we are told that a dozen OC workers mentioned that there had been break ins at the resort in their statements to the police. Please notice that this is a dozen people saying that there had been break ins at the resort. IT IS NOT a dozen break-ins being reported. If a few break-ins had occurred it is likely that ALL members of the OC staff would know about them & might mention this to police.

Next we are given a few examples of burglaries in Praia da Luz during early 2007.

1. Ian Robertson, not in PJ files as far as I can tell, allegedly reports a burglary in February and says two neighbours had also been burgled. What is the source for this?

2. Three weeks earlier than the Robertson burglary, so perhaps January, £500 & personal items were taken from an apartment in same block as 5a. No details e.g. apt number, name of victim, or source of the story.

3. April 16th another flat in the same block was burgled apparently after being "cased" earlier in the day. No details e.g. apt number, name of victim, source of story.

4. According to reports (newspaper?) quoting police sources there was yet another break-in at the OC that month (April?) in which a child was disturbed and the intruders fled when the parents came in. No details e.g. apt number, name of victim, source of story.

5. The week before Madeleine vanished Pamela Fenn's flat directly above the McCann's apartment was perhaps the subject of an attempted burglary "She was sitting watching TV," a friend said "when she heard a noise in her bedroom....The man must have heard her coming and was scrambling out of the window. She just saw the back of his head." How strange that neither Mrs Fenn nor her neice Carol Tranmer mention this incident in the statement by her that is in the files. It is worth noting that a statement made by Carol Tranmer in May 2007 is not included in the PJ files.

Why do S&S include this report, presumably from a newspaper, of an unnamed friend's account of an incident they did not witness, in their definitive book.

All high hopes I had for this book are vanishing fast.

Pressing on, we are told that apartment 5a itself may have been a target....oh dear.... wait for it.....because it is on the ground floor, has doors and windows on two sides & two weeks before the McCann's arrived the front door light was dangling out of order. Really?

No wait, there is more, there is an actual incident involving apartment 5a and a police statement! Maybe this is better than the rest.

In summer 2006 baby sitter Margaret Hall we are told heard a noise and went out of the apartments front door to investigate she saw a man in the shadows and shouted. He came towards her saying 'no,no'. Frightened she went back inside without finding out what he was doing or why he was there.

This is not 100% accurate, one detail is wrong and the time is not given. Here is part of Margaret Hall's statement.

Given that there were problems with rodents in the apartments she went out to have a look in the area at about 00.30. She left by the front door and in the darkness, by the movement sensitive lights, she saw something move and thought its was a rat. To her surprise, when she examined it closely, she saw that it was a brown shoe of a man who was watching the dark zone outside the apartments. She shouted and the man came out of the darkness, the lights were activated at which point he came towards her and said "No, no".

She said the man was aged between 25 - 35 years, with a Mediterranean aspect with tight black curly hair. She is certain that he had a Mediterranean accent, surely Portuguese. From the only two words he said. He wore light coloured trousers and a blue checked shirt.

After this she returned to the apartment in a state of shock, it was obvious that there was no good reason for him to be hiding in the darkness outside the apartment.

She does not mention hearing a noise. She says she went outside because there had been problems with rodents. The time of this incident in 00.30 so rather late at night.

I don't know about you, but I can think of a few reasons for this man being there. My favorite is that he might have stopped in the darkness of the "car park" in front of apt 5a to relieve himself while on the way home & was surprised by a young lady who came out of the apartment. There could of course be all manner of other reasons for him being there, 9months before the McCann's arrived & not committing any sort of crime at all!

What do the authors serve up next?

"Information given to Kate McCann the night after her daughter vanished- by the British consul in the Algarve, Bill Henderson- indicated there had recently been instances of an intruder getting into children's beds."

OK, that sounds interesting and relevant. I am surprised that the British consul was there within 24hrs of Madeleine's disappearance and that he chose to give this info to Kate McCann at that time or that Kate was in any state to receive it, but yes this is interesting & probably very important.
OH bother! "No details were forthcoming...................That line of inquiry,potentially highly significant, will be covered later." Just a literary trick to tease me then. I'll have to wait till I get to the right chapter to find out more about this.

What next?

Compelling testimony from British girl Tamsin Sillence. OK let's hope this is good. We are told that Tamsin (aged 12) used to live in apartment 5a. She twice saw a man near the apartment. First on April 30th 2007 at about 08.00 she saw him leaning on the wall looking up at the balcony of apartment 5a. Then on 2nd May at about 12.30 she saw him standing in front of the entrance to the tapas restaurant looking in the direction of the apartments.
Tamsin Sillence statement is in the official PJ files and agrees with the account given by the authors.

Then the authors present an account given by a tourist who doesn't want to be named who they say says she saw a man in more or less the same spot (as Tamsin?) on the same day (2nd May?) who appeared to be watching 5a. So this could be two witnesses reporting the same event. This unnamed woman also is reported to have seen the same man several days later "loitering nearby".
Is there more? Disappointingly not.

The authors go on to the account of Carol Tranmer, Mrs Fenn's niece. Once again the authors state that Mrs Fenn had confronted an intruder in her apartment a few days before Madeleine went missing. I repeat, this incident IS NOT mentioned in Mrs Fenn's statement nor in Carol Tranmer's statement in the PJ files. We are then told of an incident that Carol Tranmer does mention in her statement:

"I saw someone," she would remember, "come out of the ground floor apartment, closing the gate very carefully and quietly. It looked very strange to me. He looked to one side and the other, shut the gate and walked very quickly below[us]."

We are told that this happened at about 17.00 on 3rd May 2007 just a few hours before Madeleine disappeared and there this dreadful chapter reaches its conclusion.

Summary
So what have I learned about the case from reading this chapter? Allow me to summarise.


1. There were a few reports of several men visiting a few properties in Praia da Luz posing as collectors for orphanages, hostels & hospices that did not exist.

2. There were some burglaries in Praia da Luz in the months before Madeleine went missing.

3. A man was seen outside the apartment late at night perhaps hiding in the dark.

4. There may be evidence of an intruder getting into children's beds, but no details were given, just a promise to return to this subject later.

5. Two or three people saw a man near apartment 5a. He was described as looking at the apartment or looking in the direction of the apartment or loitering somewhere near the apartment. On one occasion, one witness saw him leaving the apartment patio and closing the child gate very carefully.

It's not much is it?

1. Con men in a holiday resort. Hardly surprising.

2. Burglaries happen everywhere. The authors present only a few examples.

3. A man committing no crime was seen perhaps hiding in the dark.

4. This could be something important, but is just a teaser at the moment no information given.

5. A man seen near apartment at least twice not committing any crime.

Conclusions about this chapter.

When I first read this chapter I almost thought WOW all that evidence of people snooping around 5a, criminal activity, burglaries, paedophiles getting into childrens beds. It's obvious Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile. Only my training to examine evidence carefully made question what seemed obvious. Then I started to go through checking exactly what was being said and checking available statements and facts. It soon became clear that what was being presented here was either a deliberate distortion of the evidence, or very shoddy research work. I'll let you judge which , but either way I'm giving it an F-.

Friday, September 19, 2014

Chapter 6 (these are not getting any easier to do)

I start reading this chapter thinking that it cannot possibly be as bad as chapter 5. I do hope I am right. I hope to get a proper factual description of events and facts of the case. Maybe even some thoughtful analysis as well.

The opening line "Where's Madeleine, Mummy?" is a disappointment. Not only because it seems a little unlikely for a 27month old child to form such a sentence ("Where Madlin?" would be far more likely), but because it can only be seen as an attempt to engage the emotions of the reader rather than the intellect.

There follows a description of Kate's supposed suicidal thoughts in the early days after Madeleine disappeared. I say supposed suicidal thoughts because I could find no evidence except Kate McCann's own words that she had such thoughts.
In any case the thoughts Kate claims she was having were not of suicide. She has claimed that she thought about her whole family dying in an accident of some sort. It is familicide that Kate was contemplating and it is a very interesting subject usually with shame as it's motive. If I have time I may write another blog post about this at a later date.
Suffice to say that the opening paragraphs of this chapter seem to be a cynical attempt to engage the emotions of the reader by presenting hearsay as fact with no comment on the fact that Kate's instinct seemed to be to want the death of herself and the rest of her family rather than to find Madeleine.

The appeal to the readers emotions continues with descriptions of images that we are told Kate had scrolling through her mind. This section is in quotation marks:

" 'I was tormented with a macabre slideshow of images that no sane human being would want in their head. I would see her lying cold and mottled on a big grey stone slab, and awful pictures of her being torn apart scrolled through my mind. I was desperate to talk to someone about them, and when Gerry and I took a walk on the beach in Portugal, I confided in him. Of course, he'd had similar thoughts.' "

I'm not certain from where this supposed quote is supposed to come, I couldn't find it. It looks as if it is not a quote, but rather a paraphrase & fusion from two separate and controversial sections of Kate's book in which she says:

Kindle (location 1568)
"I also felt a compulsion to run up to the top of the Rocha Negra. Somehow, inflicting physical pain on myself seemed to be the only possible way of escaping my internal pain. The other truly awful manifestation of what I was feeling was a macabre slideshow of vivid pictures in my brain that taunted me relentlessly. I was crying out that I could see Madeleine lying, cold and mottled, on a big grey stone slab."

This passage is in a section that is about the events of 5th May 2007.

Kindle location 1942
"I remember this walk well. It had been a chaotic and confusing ten days, shot through with unremitting cold dread and dark thoughts that were hard to push away when we had nothing else with which to replace them. That is the anguish of the 'not knowing'.
I asked Gerry apprehensively if he'd had any really horrible thoughts or visions of Madeleine. He nodded. Haltingly, I told him about the awful pictures that scrolled through my head of her body, her perfect little genitals torn apart. Although I knew I had to share this burden, just raising the subject out loud to someone else, even Gerry, was excruciating. Admitting the existence of these images somehow confirmed them as a real possibility, and with that confirmation came renewed waves of fear."

Kate is specific that this walk happened on Sunday 13th May.

I have to ask S&S these questions.

Why paraphrase and fuse two sections of Kate's book separated by many pages and about 8 days in real time?
Why omit Kate's reference to Madeliene's genitals?


The chapter continues with description of the arrival of a catholic priest Father Pacheco and a counsellor Alan Pike and their first encounters with the McCann's.
We are told about the church, Gerry's "vision" moment when he became energised to become positive & active in the campaign/search.
Then the arrival of a media advisor, also hired by Mark Warner is mentioned as is the growing media presence.
The media come in for criticism here, perhaps justified, although the comment that "elements of the media-Portuguese and British alike-now seemingly sympathetic, would come to libel them." is not 100% accurate.
This part of the chapter is not too bad, although it is not perfect & many things are omitted that could be considered relevant e.g. Alan Pikes credentials as a counsellor and his speedy arrival in Praia da Luz.

The authors now return to the McCann's relationship with the Portuguese police. They describe the day , 10th May, when Kate, Gerry , Matthew Oldfield, Russel O'Brien and Jane Tanner were asked to return to the police station to be interviewed. Once again the authors are guilty of being dishonest in their description of events. They say:

"Having waited for eight hours to be seen, however, Kate was told she could go home. Four months were to pass before the police would call her in again."

Now here is what Kate McCann herself says in her book:

"I sat in the waiting area for eight hours before I was told it was now too late for me to be interviewed and I should go home and come back the next day. Gerry was there for thirteen hours. When he finally returned to the apartment he related how Matt had been almost hysterical during his interview, Gerry had heard him shouting and crying. Apparently, it had been put to Matt that he'd handed Madeleine out through the window to a third party. It was like something out of Life on Mars.
Alan Pike was concerned about my wellbeing and asked for my rescheduled interview to be postponed for a few days. The PJ couldn't have considered it all that important: it was 6 September before I was interviewed again."

So even in Kate's own words the PJ wanted her to return the next day, but she with the help of Alan Pike got that interview postponed. Kate says it cannot have been very important to the PJ. She is correct in a way because Robert Murat suddenly became a possible suspect the very next day and became an arguido on 14th May just 3 days after Kate had been due to return to give her statement.

Why are S&S so reluctant to present the whole truth about events? This sort of dishonesty should have no place in such a book.

Now we come to the McCann's and their friends working on a formal version of the timeline of the night of 3rd May. We are told that this was requested by the police:

"The police had said that those rough documents, written on the covers of a child's book, would not do. So it was four or five days later, that they worked on the chronology again."

This seems most peculiar. We were told earlier that a PJ officer was present when the first timelines on the book cover were written, although there is no evidence that was true. Now after the police have interviewed all of the tapas group and have asked them all for their version of events including times. Twice in the case of Gerry McCann, Jane Tanner and Russel O'Brien. They now require the most important witnesses to work together without a PJ officer present to produce a better version. That just didn't sound right to me so I decided to check.

Fortunately Kate McCann's own book provided a much more believable account of the reason the group drew up a new timeline document. Here is what Kate says:

"By Sunday evening," (presumably this is Sunday 13th May) we found ourselves giving our statements again, this time to a couple of detectives from Control Risks." (Kate had earlier explained that Control Risks was a company brought in by a shadowy character called Hugh {no surname, 'Just call me Hugh'}.) "We were concerned that parts of the statements we had made to the Portuguese police, especially on that first day, might have been lost in translation. We also felt that these accounts were not sufficiently thorough and wanted to have every detail we could remember registered properly."

So S&S have been dishonest once more. The PJ had not requested that the group provide a more detailed timeline at all. I'm starting to wonder whether all this dishonest reporting is deliberate or incompetent.

S&S now go on to reproduce the document that the group compiled with the help of a firm called Control Risks and a man called Hugh. They describe it as:

"the single most rounded summary, by those directly involved, of the critical events of the night"

What they don't say is what Kate McCann said in her book:

"we made the mistake of assuming that the transcripts would be correct and discovered only many months later that these, too, contained inaccuracies."

Yet more dishonest reporting by S&S. How many more examples will I find? This is only chapter 6.

Now the authors turn to Jane Tanner who they say was by now convinced that she had seen Madeleine being abducted. There follows some description of the pyjamas Madeleine and the child in the sighting might have been wearing.

Next the incident of Madeleine supposedly asking Kate why she hadn't come when she & Sean were crying. The suggestion by Kate that this might have been an attempt to abduct her the previous night is repeated.

The chapter moves on to consider the fact that the twins did not wake up in spite of the commotion on the night of May 3rd/4th and that the child Jane Tanner saw was motionless while being carried. There follows a discussion of ways that children might have been sedated by the abductor.

This discussion is accurate in what is said about the various anaesthetic agents, but it is written in a way that seems to give the impression that such sedation by an abductor would be possible. The alternative, that if they were drugged at all, it is far more likely to have been by someone they knew and trusted administering an oral sedative is not considered.

S&S also take this opportunity to say that Kate requested that the twins be tested for sedatives just two days after Madeleine went missing. I could not find any corroboration that such a request was made to the investigating police force.
The fact that the twins were tested many months later is mentioned & possible reasons for the negative results discussed.

The chapter concludes with a description of Saturday May 12th Madeleine's 4th birthday. Events in Rothley, Glasgow and Praia da Luz are described including the McCann's visit to the church. The authors do not mention the scene of them leaving the church, something that has rightly been considered an important event. Another omission which I shall add to the growing list.
Finally the name Robert Murat is mentioned. Presumably that tale will form the subject of chapter 7.

Summary & Conclusion
What can I say? More dishonest reporting. Not even staying true to Kate McCann's own account of events. Omissions of important facts and events. Obvious attempts to appeal to the readers' emotions by inaccurate, distorted and selective reporting, rather than their intellects. These early chapters purport to be accurately relating the story of events in Praia da Luz in early summer 2007. This chapter along with the first 5 completely fails to achieve a reasonable level of accuracy. Hence if I was marking it as I would a students assignment I could only award it a D- (if I was feeling particularly generous).

For anyone brave enough to have seen a copy of this book.
Are the Smithman e-fits in it?

Hi Dantezebu, yes the efits of Smithman are in the book.



ETA.  Only read the first couple of pages so far in the book,  so don't know how they are mentioned but there are two sections of pics and the Smithman are in the second lot near the back.

candyfloss wrote:Hi Dantezebu, yes the efits of Smithman are in the book.



ETA.  Only read the first couple of pages so far in the book,  so don't know how they are mentioned but there are two sections of pics and the Smithman are in the second lot near the back.

Thanks cf

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/torrent-of-hate-for-new-madeleine-book-288012.html

The authors of a new book on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann say the publication is being targeted by a sustained campaign of abuse online.

They claim they have “received confirmation” that “vigilantes” within a Facebook group claiming some 30,000 members are intent on sabotaging the book because it concludes that the family had no role in the disappearance.

Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, who live in west Waterford, said there has been “a torrent of hate mail” largely on Facebook and Twitter, from people who persecute Madeleine’s parents and “make vile allegations on the basis of no evidence at all”.

The book has also attracted some negative commentary on the Amazon site most of which, the writers contend, “make it clear the review writers had not first read the book”.

The site also carries many positive reviews, while the book has been described as “compelling” by the Daily Telegraph.

The Richard and Judy book club labels it “forensically detailed... incredibly chilling”, while The Sun considers it “explosive”.

Between them the authors have written or co-written eight acclaimed biographies, including works on Marilyn Monroe, Richard Nixon, J Edgar Hoover, and JFK.

Their 2011 collaboration, The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 & Osama bin Laden, was shortlisted for the Pulitzer Prize for History.

Looking for Madeleine, on which they worked for two years, claims to be “the first independent, in-depth, and definitive account” of the disappearance of the three- year-old from her family’s holiday apartment in the Algarve on May 3, 2007.

The book examines documentation and official statements pertinent to the investigation and analyses events as they unfolded before, during and since Madeleine’s disappearance, now widely presumed to have been an abduction.

The work contains “graphic detail on a series of sex assaults on little British girls prior to Madeleine’s disappearance” and names several paedophile suspects.

The book dismisses any suggestion that the McCanns were in any way responsible for the disappearance, and ask “why many people in the UK — and a majority in Portugal — speculate that the McCanns have something to hide”.

@ Freedom. You can lurk on Twitter. https://twitter.com/search?q=%23mccann&src=typd will take you directly to the #McCann results. It's the modern day equivalent of visiting Bedlam.

@ Dantezebu. Summers & Swan would love their book to be subjected to a torrent of hate instead of the the torrent of indifference it is actually being subjected to. Then again, as they have already shown, Summers and Swan are not the type to let the truth get in the way of a moneymaking opportunity.

S and S have really got into McCann world, haven't they?

Any questions, no matter how reasoned and polite they may be, will be dismissed as the work of that infantile troll word haters.

Any publicity - whether good or bad in one's opinion - is better than nothing so it will be interesting to see if the sales of the book increase.

Thanks for the article and the link, Dantezebu.

I find it very interesting how the Irish Examiner states its opinion and offers no option for readers to share theirs. This seems to happen quite a lot with McCann related stories and in particular with the Irish press.