Madeleine McCann Books

From what I've heard of it - it even has a chapter devoted to tearing apart the "haters" on the Internet (yes, that's us) - it sounds unbelievably bad.

I'm not sure that I can stomach it though I know that I should give it a chance.

Mimi wrote:

Andrew wrote:I really don't want to, but I think I might have to go and buy this book so I can see and digest the bullsh!t inside.

Just mind your blood pressure then

I know. From what I have heard, it seems an absolute joke. A farce.

Summers looking for a final pay day.

Clearly been working with TM on this. They couldn't call it 'Kate 2' could they.

Freedom wrote:From what I've heard of it - it even has a chapter devoted to tearing apart the "haters" on the Internet (yes, that's us) - it sounds unbelievably bad.

I'm not sure that I can stomach it though I know that I should give it a chance.

Reading it now (well, will be at lunchtime). It is as nauseating as you can possible imagine. I'll review it in a couple of days, or tonight if I can bring myself to finish it quickly. Quickly might be best.

Haha - good stuff. Look forward to hearing your analysis on it WLBTS.

Quickly is probably the best course of action. I'm reminded of how, as a child, I would try to eat something horrible very quickly to get it out of the way and allow me to move on to something nicer.

This book might prove to be a "pease pudding" moment though - try as I might, I never could manage to eat that!

6 reviews of the hardbound book on amazon.co.uk so far...


0 of 1 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Is this book impartial?, 12 Sep 2014
By
Idacyder - See all my reviews
This review is from: Looking For Madeleine (Hardcover)
I`m thinking of buying this book, but from the media reviews it doesn`t sound a proper objective account, but sounds as if it`s totally biased in favour of the parents, so pretty pointless and the authors motves questionable. I don`t want to waste my money if the authors haven`t been able to present an impartial account. Is there any objectivity at all?


9 of 18 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars UK Media Manipulation in book form, 11 Sep 2014
By
Truthseeker "Shaz" (RCT) - See all my reviews
Verified Purchase
This review is from: Looking For Madeleine (Hardcover)
Its such a shame that the authors did not research the case before writing this book. There is a wealth of material on the McCann files and many other places on the internet that back up, without a shadow of a doubt, the theories of not just one but a whole team of Portuguese detectives, not to mention the British Police who helped to build this evidence. It seems that the book, which claims to be a true account, fails to mention the fact the many of the Private investigators employed by Brian Kennedy and the McCanns have since been imprisoned for activities outside the McCann investigation, but nevertheless were nothing other than fraudsters and crooks. Also missing is any mention of the evidence of two top British Cadaver dogs owned and trained by top dog handler Martin Grime. These dogs independently alerted to cadaver and blood in no less than 11 McCann related areas but nowhere else in Praia Da Luz. Other important documents such as the Gaspar statements and the report of Tavares de Almeida are also missing. It seems that the authors have looked only at the evidence created by the McCanns PI team and not at the official evidence. The contents of the book is nothing more than recycling that the great British Newspaper, The Sun, which has protected the suspects in this case and milked the story of poor Madeleine for all they could. Now the sun are in cahoots with this pair and want to serialise this nonsense. Watch Richplanets 4hr #McCann DVD, its much more credible and its free.
Comment Comments (9)


15 of 28 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars I can do no better than quote this, 11 Sep 2014
By
hotrod. "hotrod" (East Anglia) - See all my reviews
Verified Purchase
This review is from: Looking For Madeleine (Hardcover)
I can do no better than quote this, from the authors themselves.
"As to the serious doubts about independence and objectivity expressed before the book’s publication, especially by critics who totally reject the abduction theory, the authors responded: “The notion of criticising authors about a book even before it has been published may speak volumes about the biases of those levelling the criticisms."
An excelent account, and one guaranteed to give the morons and haters the heebie-jeebies. All their sad, pathetic little cover-up theories have been burnt!
Madeleine was abducted. ALL the experts have said so. This book just confirms and proves it. Good luck to the McCanns, and lets pray Madeleine is found soon.
Comment Comments (2)


15 of 30 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars A disgrace!, 11 Sep 2014
By
Amelia Soares - See all my reviews
This review is from: Looking For Madeleine (Hardcover)
What a load of tosh !!! Did the authors bother to read the portuguese police files on the case in depth? I bet not...they talked to...Kate and Gerry McCann instead!
"There are no significant inconsistencies in the statements of the McCanns and their friends"
WHAT???!!! Once again, READ THE FILES!
And, calling those who "dare" to doubt the Mccanns and friends version of events, "HATTERS" is inadmissable and unprofessional!
Sorry, but for me, this book has Clarence Mitchell's fingerprints all over!
Comment Comments (3)


17 of 33 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Disgusting and disgraceful, 11 Sep 2014
By
Barbara Williams "Brit" (Australia) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)  
This review is from: Looking For Madeleine (Hardcover)
I would give you a zero star if possible. Have you two sold your souls to the devil? Disgusting and disgraceful.

17 of 32 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Inaccurate and disappointing, 11 Sep 2014
By
Diane W "Fran" - See all my reviews
This review is from: Looking For Madeleine (Hardcover)
I waiting for the publication of this book with anticipation only to be sadly disappointed , this author to my mind has plucked random ideas out of the air with no evidence to substantiate them, I feel he decided the parents innocent of involvement prior to writing the book and set out to prove that ignoring well established facts about the case. Very poor

And 6 reviews for the kindle edition on amazon.co.uk


1 of 3 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Almost-but-not-quite Pulitzer, 12 Sep 2014
By
Case File Analysis - See all my reviews
This review is from: Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Edition)
I had hoped against all hopes that this book by the almost-but-not-quite Pulitzer Price Winners would tackle the hundreds of questions this case still raises. That the original case files would be analysed in depth, the contradictions in statements and in the timeline be addressed. But all we get is a copy-and-paste job of the British media "articles" and quotes out of Kate McCann's book trying to undo the worst mistakes she made in it.
As to the reason why the Portuguese police suspected them from the beginning, based on their changing statements we just get a terse " Inconsistencies are perfectly natural. Move along, nothing to see."
I had wished for a proper case file analysis, something that always involves different theories and their probabilities, but all we are left with is a fan book.
Since I did not order a fan book it will go back where it came from.

3 of 7 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Dreadfully disappointing !, 11 Sep 2014
By
Mrs. S. A. Jones - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Verified Purchase
This review is from: Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Edition)
Dreadfully disappointing! A few pages into the book I find a provable factual error? How am I to believe the rest of research which includes as sources news articles and Kate McCanns book!
On May 3rd 2007 Madeleine's morning activity according to to the files AND Kate's book was sailing. They went swimming in the afternoon.
If writing a factual book about a missing child it is incredibly important to get the time lines of events correct ( where known)
It's also written badly and not impartial at all !

1 of 5 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars One Star, 11 Sep 2014
By
A Sheep Farmer - See all my reviews
Verified Purchase
This review is from: Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Edition)
It's super-inaudible.

7 of 10 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars When will he have Gonçalo Amaral's book on sale in ..., 11 Sep 2014
By
Amelia Soares - See all my reviews
This review is from: Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Edition)
When will he have Gonçalo Amaral's book on sale in Amazon???
"The truth of the lie", based on the REAL investigation and on the REAL police files!

17 of 23 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Oh dear, 11 Sep 2014
By
Disappointed big-time - See all my reviews
This review is from: Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Edition)
This book promised to be 'the first independent, objective account of the case'.
I received the kindle edition this morning and was hoping to find at least some exclusive revelations from the authors, who apparently nearly won a Pulitzer for a previous book. They must have worked harder on that than on this.
They seem to have used their team of interns to copy and paste article after article from newspaper websites and blogs while rehashing Kate McCann's own book.
The authors declare their allegiance to the McCann cause right up front and hammer home their point of view at the beginning of most chapters.
'Speculation that the McCanns played a role in their daughter's fate, the authors demonstrate, is unfounded.'
'The authors.. have not seen a shred of evidence to indicate that Gerry and Kate McCann, any member of their holiday group.. were at any stage - guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann's disappearance.'
'There was never the smallest shred of fact or evidence to inculpate Maddie's parents in any way at all'.'
'Despite there being no evidence of any wrongdoing on the McCanns' part their critics proliferated.'
Yes, yes, Anthony, we get the picture. We understand that if there had have been sufficient evidence, the McCanns would have been charged by now.
And the lawyers could no doubt wave this through, thus enabling you and your publishers to profit at the expense of a missing child.
But seriously, Mr. Summers.. No questions? Not one?
If you want a partner book to Kate McCann's, this is for you. But if you want to learn anything interesting, save your cash.
The definitive account won't be written for a while yet.

7 of 19 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Very impressive, 11 Sep 2014
By
Zombie Flickfan (Cheshire, UK) - See all my reviews
Verified Purchase
This review is from: Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Edition)
At last we have an independent, easy-to-read book from accredited authors who spent two years studying the case before pubishing.
"Looking for Madeleine" delivers the promise of being a definitive account as it painstakingly sorts through the mire of myth and counter myth about this heart-breaking case.
The authors take the reader through every aspect of the case, from the events leading up to almost-four year old Madeleine's abduction, all the way through to the most recent developments of the Scotland Yard investigation. It is a professional and unbiased account which focuses purely on established facts and no attempt has been made to gloss over the faults of any of the parties involved.
We are used to hearing criticism of the Portuguese investigation, but refreshingly, the authors have highlighted many aspects of the investigation where praise is due. For example, the thoroughness of many aspects of data collection and the tireless dedication of many of the police officers working on the ground.
The book deals sensitively with the private and often crippling despair of the parents as they struggled to come to terms not only with the disappearance of their daughter, but the Goliathan task of having to conduct a worldwide search for her on their own. As one of the benefactors who stepped in to help them said, how can you find a needle in the haystack when you can't even find the haystack? We also learn of the cruel, vicious and often sinister campaign of hate and "black propaganda" which rages unbound on the world wide web.
It is clear that Summers and Swan have gone to a great deal of effort to research and verify the evidence of the case - i.e. the sniffer dogs and the forensic findings. However, the explanations are then relayed to the reader in layman's terms and facts pertaining to the various instances of corruption within the Portuguese legal system are diplomatically handled.
This is a fast and effortless page-turner of a book which I read in a single sitting.
I would therefore recommend to readers that if you only read one account of this tragic case, then make it this one.

Some of the comments on the reviews are highly interesting in themselves. Lots of arguments starting between the believers and the nonbelievers (oh, sorry, the Haters)... :-)

Mimi wrote:
And, calling those who "dare" to doubt the Mccanns and friends version of events, "HATTERS" is inadmissable and unprofessional!

HATTERS?!?!?!

Oh well, it does sometimes feel like we are at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party when looking at this case

ETA: Sorry Mimi, didn't mean this to look as if you'd said that, but wasn't sure how to do it without leaving in loads of the original quote.

dantezebu wrote:230 000 likes in 24 hours

He's just got another one from me !!!

Here is what comes after the authors' note and before the book proper :   the setting of the scene. The claim is that this is the definitive account of the case,  and as such I would expect no use of dramatic licence. This book will not be placed on the fiction section of any bookshop or library.

All I had to do was read what I have posted below to know that the rest of the book will not be worth the £6 it is already reduced to on Amazon. Those interested can click on the kindle version's LOOK INSIDE link and read the entire book for free.


Cast your eyes if you will on the following and spot the drama added for effect, something which does not exist in any documents related to the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

What makes it especially offensive for me is that the case file number for a missing person is given at the end. This is all seemingly factual, yet we have at the outset an insertion of pure imagination.



A night in 2007. A seaside resort in Europe, just north of where the Atlantic meets the Mediterranean. Spring, but early spring, and the breeze from the north – two hours after sunset – is chilly. On the beach, named after Our Lady of Light, the tide has sucked the water to its lowest point.
Four hundred yards inland, a swimming pool. Palm trees, sun loungers tidied away for the night. Dinner tables and waiters. The clink of glasses. The sound of laughter, English voices.
Across the water, a sixty-second walk away, a five-storey apartment block.
There is movement in the darkness, undetected movement.
Is it a child, wandering alone into the night? Is it a person, male or female, furtively making away with a child?
Moments later, a man is seen walking purposefully nearby, carrying something in his arms. The something appears to be a small child, warm from its slumber, still in nightclothes.
A child will go missing this night, May 3rd 2007, a child who has since become enduringly famous for an absence that has lasted years. As circulated by Interpol at the request of Portugal’s Polícia Judiciária, the disappearance is that of a little girl:
File No: 2007123403
Present Family Name: McCann
Forenames: Madeleine Beth.

I would normally advise anyone who produced something of this "quality" not to give up their day jobs but this is how S and S make their living!

The style of writing would be okay if was intended as a novel.

I'm still as mad as a hatter after learning that these professional writers use the infantile troll word "haters" to describe people who don't believe the McCanns.

AAARGH!

haters is such a immature word

As a follow-on from the above, I expect that there is on video a record of how long the walk is from the poolside tapas eating area to the apartment block in question and that the walk at normal speed for a fit and healthy adult approaching early middle age is one minute. The sixty seconds is an exact time.


I have not copied over the stuff by the authors that we have all read about the innuendo and assertions from doubters of the abduction story.

The definitive book and indeed any book claiming to have researched this case would have started with an open mind : a missing child.
Already at the outset it is clear that the cart has been put before the horse: the scenario is a given... either a child has wandered away in the night, never to be seen again, or a furtive person has removed her from where she was staying. This could be anyone, but what enters the mind of the average reader will be one of two scenarios  : exited alone and vulnerable or taken by a stranger. This should have been a conclusion reached, not presented at the outset.


It might be worthwhile at this point and apologies to those who are weary from JH with my love of many things Russian, to mention the investigation into the murder and disposal of the body of Gregori Rasputin. Nothing like the disappearance of a child, of course, but there is one major thing in common and which is common to many accounts post -crime.


The following is from a riveting book by Andrew Cook, who concludes after having access to unpublished reviews of autopsy reports and reports from ballistics experts, the factual information against which must be weighed witness accounts.... which concludes that Britain and one particular British intelligence agent fired the 3rd and fatal shot in the head which killed GR. Three Russians had given conflicting accounts of their actions that night.


Cook writes after noting all of their accounts with their contradictions, inconsistencies and discrepancies, knowing full well that some inconsistencies can be expected in the aftermath of a tumultuous event when people's memories are hazy and emotions are high due to anxiety :



" What Yupusov,, Purishkevich and Lazovert do have in common is that their recollections fall into the general pattern of a good many post-crime accounts.
After a crime is committed, the participants will often agree to tell the same story. However, while the basic narrative of their accounts will be very similar, it is in the fine detail that cracks begin to appear , for it is in the minutiae that they have not been able to collaborate or collude--it is here that the story starts to come apart at the seams.
 All three accounts are equally irrational and self-serving. Apart from contradicting each other, they also contradict the evidence of witnesses and the evidence of the autopsy. By a process of eliminating the most unlikely, implausible and impossible accounts and by applying the conclusions of new forensic evidence and testimony we can at last begin to reconstruct the most likely solution to this nine -decade mystery "


Unless S and S have studied the witness statements and rogatories and have asked for the input of an experienced former detective to account for contradictions and inconsistencies which can not reasonably be accounted for by anxiety and resultant lapses in memory, unless these statements are cross -referenced by the authors with factual evidence which might show that they contain lies, then their book is not well-researched. Not only is it not the definitive account, it is not what they say it is in their introduction and as such is not worth the paper it is written on.

Freedom wrote:I would normally advise anyone who produced something of this "quality" not to give up their day jobs but this is how S and S make their living!

The style of writing would be okay if was intended as a novel.

I'm still as mad as a hatter after learning that these professional writers use the infantile troll word "haters" to describe people who don't believe the McCanns.

AAARGH!  

In the mcs minds and all of those who support, the people who have taken an interest in this case soon realise all is not as it seems. It's not really hard to see why us and most others don't believe a word the mcs say. Infact, by each day, IMO more and more people are starting to look deeper into this case. A lot more people are seeing what we see. The word "haters" turned me. Now, I actually don't mind the word "hater", but only if it's towards the parents, and only for leaving their children alone and then not being truthful, for her. Me, I actually feel like I know Maddie, in trying to get to the truth for her, we have to, Maddie has no voice now and it's people like us, who have to fight for that right for her. IMO, her parents have not done the right thing by her, it's just been about saving their own a@@es. If they'd have been truthful from the start, Maddie would have a descent and peaceful resting place, but ofcourse, it's all about them, always has been and always will be.
IMO

Freedom wrote:I would normally advise anyone who produced something of this "quality" not to give up their day jobs but this is how S and S make their living!

The style of writing would be okay if was intended as a novel.

I'm still as mad as a hatter after learning that these professional writers use the infantile troll word "haters" to describe people who don't believe the McCanns.

AAARGH!  

It just reflects back on them - they`re now in the Lorraine Kelly category - i.e. superficial, shallow, puppets, easily bought and without integrity.  Silly Billies.

Richard and Judy thoughts on the book...................

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/richard-and-judy/510491/Richard-Judy-Scottish-independence-Kate-s-pregnancy-Maddie-book

(won't allow copy and paste)

candyfloss wrote:Richard and Judy thoughts on the book...................

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/richard-and-judy/510491/Richard-Judy-Scottish-independence-Kate-s-pregnancy-Maddie-book

(won't allow copy and paste)

What a load of rubbish Judy dear......

Judy:

ON HOLIDAY this week I've been reading some genuinely frightening extracts from a new book by two Pulitzer Prize-finalist investigative journalists. It's called Looking For Madeleine.

It's about the heartbreaking ongoing search for Madeleine McCann, abducted aged three from her family's holiday apartment in Portugal in May 2007. Authors Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan have spent two years researching the case, inspired by their own young daughter's question: "Do they really think this little girl may be alive?" The book is forensically detailed in its examination of the quest to find Madeleine, a continuing quest still causing agony to her parents Kate and Gerry.

But what astonished and horrified me as a parent who has often taken family holidays in the Algarve with our children is the evidence the writers unearthed showing sexual assaults on tourists' children in Praia da Luz, the town in which Madeleine was taken, and the surrounding area.

As parents Richard and I were appalled to read about a British man, David Reid from Northern Ireland, who lived for years working as a guitarist and entertainer in Carvoeiro, a town only 23 miles from Praia da Luz. Before he moved to Portugal he had served three years in jail for indecently assaulting his four daughters. Although he died in 2013 he was still in Carvoeiro in May 2007 when Madeleine was abducted.

Another Brit, an Englishman called Raymond Hewlett, had been repeatedly jailed for sexual assault and rape of minors in Britain. In May 2007 he was living at a campsite 70 miles from Praia da Luz. He, too, is now dead.

In fact the McCanns' private detectives identified four villages and towns (all within 40 miles of Praia da Luz) in which intruders had either assaulted or tried to abduct young girls just before Madeleine's disappearance. Five out of six attacks targeted British girls, most aged nine or 10. One in nearby Silves was just three.

Summers and Swan heard reports of many suspicious incidents in the area. In fact between 2004 and 2010 there were 18 break-ins that involved children in properties where British families stayed - three in Praia da Luz itself.

This is all incredibly chilling. We used to stay in rented villas in Praia da Luz - a charming little seaside town - every Easter when our kids were small. We never left them "home alone" while we went out but many's the time we excused them from the table as we finished lunch at a beachside restaurant and let them play by themselves on the magnificent Atlantic beach.

We'd try to keep an eye on them but the bay is huge and it was swarming with little children.

I'm now not sure I would ever go back there with our little granddaughter. As the authors conclude, if Kate and Gerry McCann had known the history of sexual assaults on tourist children in Praia da Luz they would never to make checking on them easier while they were a few yards away at dinner.

"Indeed," they write, "had they known about the sex assaults in advance of their holiday, they might not have travelled to the Algarve at all."

To us Praia da Luz seemed the perfect destination for a childfriendly family holiday. If we'd known the evil that was lurking there we would never have gone.

How did you manage to do that then Andrew, tell me the secret.

candyfloss wrote:How did you manage to do that then Andrew, tell me the secret.

Just dragged my mouse over it to highlight it. Then click 'copy' then click 'paste' when on here...

Very strange because that works everywhere else for me but the express, sometimes a tiny bit highlights in red, but can't get more than a couple of words.

I don't normally get so worked up about the garbage we see in the MSM. But this is just so sick and twisted. So according to Judy, we should all be scared of holidaying in Prai de Luz cos the paedophiles are out there ready to snatch your kids. So it's the evil peados again. Meantime no mention of the Gaspar statement or anything.

You know I'm really somewhat reluctant to point the paedophile finger at the Mccanns and their pals (simpley cos it seems a little distasteful, even if I think it's what this case is about), but God, team Mccann have had absolutely no quibbles about doing exactly the same thing with all and sundry.

Is it possible for a tourism company or even whole town to sue for slander or whatever the equivalent might be.
Because this article is absolutely disgusting. If my livelihood depended on tourism in PdeL I would be livid.
There is only one child missing from Praia de Luz and that one was not abducted by paedophiles or suffered a sexual assault by a stranger.

"In fact the McCanns' private detectives identified four villages and towns (all within 40 miles of Praia da Luz) in which intruders had either assaulted or tried to abduct young girls just before Madeleine's disappearance. Five out of six attacks targeted British girls, most aged nine or 10. One in nearby Silves was just three.

Summers and Swan heard reports of many suspicious incidents in the area. In fact between 2004 and 2010 there were 18 break-ins that involved children in properties where British families stayed - three in Praia da Luz itself."

This is so misleading.
Firstly the "evidence" comes from the McCann' private detectives, and the least said about that the better.
They try then to merge 18 break-ins to these attacks targeting British girls. How were the children involved in 18 break-ins.
So a break-in now morphs into a sexual assault on a child.
But were there any actual "attacks". I thought the concern was a man entering unlocked villas and hanging round.
Where is the evidence?

They should be able to sue, its certainly a horrible thing to do as it is taking no account whatsoever of the people who live in the area and effectively tarring them with harbouring some sort of sex offender!

More worrying I think, is Scotland Yard's own following up of this line of enquiry in their last Crimewatch when they called for all those who had been assaulted/or suffered break-ins, to come forward.  It could be of course, that they were just ticking boxes, they were seen to be following all lines of enquiry, in the event that certain people claimed leads weren't followed.

Across the water, a sixty-second walk away, a five-storey apartment block.
There is movement in the darkness, undetected movement.
Is it a child, wandering alone into the night? Is it a person, male or female, furtively making away with a child?
Moments later, a man is seen walking purposefully nearby, carrying something in his arms. The something appears to be a small child, warm from its slumber, still in nightclothes.
A child will go missing this night, May 3rd 2007

Here is why the above is nonsense.
You don't cross the pool to walk to 5a. It might be a minute as the crow flies, but there was no straight line from tapas bar to the block.

Undetected movement. No-one has seen it then, and in fact no-one did tell police or media that they saw any movement in the dark near that apartment block.
It is not the movement detected by Tanner, that is mentioned next.

There is no way an onlooker seeing a man with a child would be able to tell if the child was warm, cold, sleeping, unconscious, alive or lifeless.

Unseen movement, It is written for effect, by the authors, no -one saw it, the authors invented it. How a child moving in the dark could be mistaken for an adult male or female is not relevant, clearly.
The odd change of tense,,,a child will go missing. By the time S and S have reached this point, the child has already vanished.
She will be reported missing, of course. But from what they tell us, we know Maddie is no longer in her bed.

A right royal crock.