Friday, 19 September 2014

Summers by Summers


Mr Summers is an artist of his own.

We won’t call him a writer because he doesn’t appear to be one. We won’t call him a journalist because, as we’ll show you, he demonstrates he isn’t really one.

In any library there are the fiction and the non-fiction areas. Some advocate there should be a third section which is neither. They call it fantasy.

Mr Summers’ work is none. Not even fantasy. A category has to be created for his work. Libraries willing to carry his books will have to find a unique space to shelve it. Not even those rooms with “men” and “women” written on the door are appropriate as it seems the toilet bowls refuse to be associated with this man’s work.

We think we nailed it when we called his latest book “Looking for Madeleine” a piece of… That’s as precise as anyone is able to define it with correct and intellectual honesty.

He’s not a liar. Or at least in this book he’s, in our opinion, not lying.

Does one really want or expect to deceive about one’s identity when one puts on a Halloween costume? No. It doesn’t cross anyone’s mind that one is to be taken as the real Elisa Doolittle or Princess Leia. Everyone knows it’s a costume and not a deceiving exercise. Simple role playing and all involved know that. Much like Mr Summers’ writings. Everyone knows it’s a travesty, it fools no one and everyone knows that it had never that intent. And in everyone are included Mr Summers and his co-author, Robbyn Swan.

The surprise that was reserved for us was to find out that the biggest critic we have found of Mr Summers’ latest piece is none other than Mr Summers himself.

Mr Summers, the reader, we saw, was rather harsh on Mr Summers, the author, we must say. But he was precise and very objective in his criticisms to himself as we’ll show.

A stern wag of the finger of the worst kind from Mr Summers, the reader, to Mr Summers, the author.

You see, when questioned about the content of his book “The Eleventh Hour” about 9/11,  Mr Summers attacks with an authoritarian conviction the credibility of witnesses presented by the opposing side in the debate. Plus, he is very adamant in demanding physical proof of what sustains what he deems to be “major worldwide news”.

The following video is a debate moderated by Mr Terry Kester between Mr Anthony Summers and Mr Craig Ranke. Mr Ranke was at the time part of CIT – Citizen Investigation Team. The topic of the debate was “What happened at the Pentagon on 9/11” and was pre-recorded by WPFW (Pacifica) on September 2nd, 2011 and aired on the following September 11th.



video from Only in America

We want to make very clear that we do not endorse any of the theories put forward – we haven’t researched the issue to allow us to voice our opinion on it – in the debate, reason why we have edited the transcript leaving only what we consider relevant to the Maddie case.

No comments about the Pentagon plane theory will be published, as that's not what the blog is about. We will, of course, read unpublished comments with interest.

What we only wish to call your attention to is in what way Mr Summers tackles Mr Ranke’s “evidence” and nothing else.

At 8:09:

Ranke: I will tell you that I have… our organisation (?) has, had an e-mail conversation with Lieutenant-Colonel Steve O’Brien, the pilot of the C-130, and he confirmed with us that he did not see a plane hit the Pentagon…

(…)

Summers: Can I just interject there?... Because I think…

Kester: Look, let me move on…

Summers: Mr Ranke has just made a very, very serious statement…

Kester: Ok

Summers: … saying he has this e-mail from the Colonel who from the Official version saw, he said he saw, a plane crash into the Pentagon…

Ranke: No, he didn’t say that…

Summers: If this is true, it is major worldwide news, then Mr Ranke should make this e-mail public, and the Colonel should be asked to account for it, if indeed this mail exists, if he actually says what he’s been being quoted as saying…

Ranke: Well, the e-mail is public, and we have, it’s on our website…

Mr Summers wants the physical evidence about this witness to be publicly shown and demands the witness be accountable for any discrepancy. A commendable attitude by one who demands full transparency and truth about what he deems to be “major worldwide news”.

However, on his latest book, the Express (14SEPT14) says this about a possible very strong suspect of abducting Maddie: 

“The book states: “A British citizen long resident in the Algarve has described the chilling episode when a man claiming to represent an orphanage came to the door of her friend, also English.

“There was a knock at the door, “ she recalled, “and the man standing there said he was collecting for some orphanage.

“He looked rather unkempt, scruffy. But what made her very uncomfortable was that, all the time he stood there, he wasn’t looking at her but past her – at her three-year-old daughter.”

Her sense of unease increased when she saw him waiting at the end of the road.

The friend told the authors: “And the following day, she left her three-year-old daughter downstairs for a minute or two while she went upstairs to fetch some laundry.

“Then, when she was coming back down the stairs, she caught a glimpse of the man, really only his legs, in the living room with her child.

"He left rapidly as she came down the stairs, obviously.

“She thought he had got in through the sliding patio doors and believed, even then, that he had meant to take her daughter.””

Mr Summers has this to say about the episode described above: “This is a significant development in the search for Madeleine”

Co-author Robbyn Swan is even more adamant: “This is the single most important new piece of information in our book.”


(Side-note: Express, please do quote the right person when you say you do, as in the inset you say it’s Mr Summers who says this and in the text you say it’s Ms Swan)

Well, if this episode with this “British mum” is the single most important new piece of information the book contains then we can say that both Mr Summers and Ms Swan agree that it’s “major worldwide news”.

From his reaction in debate about what happened in the Pentagon, we’re absolutely certain that Mr Summers, as reader, will demand from Mr Summers, the author, physical proof of what is written about this episode which is, according to authors, major worldwide news.

We’re also absolutely certain that Mr Summers, the reader, will demand that “British mum” be asked to account for what is said, if she or her friend, ever said it as none of it appears in the PJ Files.

No anonymity. This is far too important to be hearsay. Either this episode is true and PJ must follow it up or it’s not and the woman must face responsibility for deceiving authorities.

Mr Summers, the reader, we’re sure, will want to know why she didn’t go to the PJ with this very important information in 2007 which is something Mr Summers, the author, doesn’t explain in the book.

And we think Mr Summers, the author, should fully answer Mr Summers, the reader, by presenting publicly all the physical evidence involving this particular episode.

Surely Mr Summers, the reader, will be very critical of Mr Summers, the author, for only substantiating this important piece of information with a “the authors did not speak directly to the British woman, who has since returned to live in the UK” and a “however, they spoke to a friend of hers who told them the story”

The single most important piece of information of your book based on a FOAF? What would Mr Ranke say, Mr Summers?

Most importantly, what would Mr Summers say, Mr Summers? A very stern wag of the finger, we would say.

But it’s not only here that Mr Summers, the reader, is very critical of Mr Summers, the author.

At 11:18

Summers: I’m not sure how useful this part of the conversation is to listeners, especially what Mr Ranke is saying about his witnesses, as far as I can gather, he talked to these witnesses not close to the date but around 2005, 2006, would I be right?

Ranke: Yes, that was when our investigation was launched…

Summers: Yes, is that correct?

Ranke: Several of their accounts are also recorded…

Summers: Is that correct?

Ranke: …on by the government. We have official accounts…

Summers: Is, is that correct? That you spoke to witnesses…

Ranke: …where they say they saw the same thing and place the plane in the same place in 2001

Summers: …in 2005 and thereafter?

Ranke: No, no, if you’re listening to me, yes, that’s when we spoke with them and video recorded them on location

Summers: No, I’m just asking whether it is correct that you spoke with your witnesses as late as… at least in the middle of the decade.

Mr Summer’s then proceeds to make his point by using a personal experience from the time he was a “very young reporter” on a report he had to do about a kid on a bicycle having been run over by a car. According to Mr Summers, as eye-witnesses provided varying accounts of details on the same day, their versions would certainly vary more over the years.

Kester: Ok, let’s move on gentleman…

Summers: I.. I... There is actually something else I want to say about that…

Kester: Quickly, please.

Summers: As I understand it… that all of the witnesses who were in a position to see the Pentagon say that they saw the plane hit. Now, they may say that they saw the plane coming from a different direction and one of the very first lessons that I learned as a very young reporter was: I was sent out to report on a bicycle crash, a little boy had been knocked down by a car and I came back and the editor said to me “what colour was the bike?” and I said “I don’t know, sir”, I was 18 or 19 yrs old and he said “go out and find out again”. Now it didn’t make any difference whether the bike was blue or red or yellow but the details were what matters and what you do discover and things as simple as a child being knocked down… a child on a bike being knocked down by a car is that you have all sort of different stories from eye witnesses right there on the day. As I understand it, at least a large number of Mr Ranke’s witnesses were interviewed many years later, and the… the point I’m trying to make is that their versions are likely to vary on the day, certainly they’ll vary years later…


We have never seen a report on a newspaper about a bicycle being run over, or involved in any other sort of accident where its colour is referred to, or if we have we haven't noticed it, so it seems to us Mr Summers' editor wanted to play a professional prank and not teach any sort of lesson.

We also fail to see how can one conclude that as different witnesses provide different – not varying – accounts of an event, it means a witness will vary his/her story in time. Mr Summers does not imply in any way that any of the witnesses changed their version during the day, only that many witnesses describe the event with different details. He doesn't answer “I don’t know, sir, some witnesses say it was red but others said it was blue”, he simply replies with the “I don’t know, sir” of someone who has just been caught of not having asked the right questions to the right people and confesses the incompetence. Mr Ranke does point out correctly that if all witnesses did recollect that the bicycle was red, then that means it was red and not of any other colour.

Mr Summers, is it true that you spoke to your witnesses in 2013, 2014? As late as 6, 7 years after Maddie was abducted, in 2013 and thereafter?

Well, Mr Summers, we’re sorry but have to inform you that there’s a Mr Summers who doesn’t believe a single word your witnesses have to say in your book. You can ask him yourself.

It has all to do with a red bicycle episode that apparently marked profoundly his – yours – journalistic (?) career whereby he is very sceptical of testimonies given later in time.

Mr Summers, the reader, is very clear in thinking that the “British mum” witness, whose friend was interviewed only after years had gone by, presented by Mr Summers, the author, in his book has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. We even dare say that it must be Mr Summers' opinion that to say such a witness provides “the single most important new piece of information” is... laughable.

So, Mr Summers, if it is true that you spoke to your FOAF witness as late as 2012 - 2014, please, as per Mr Summers, disregard all she has said. And as it seems you have spoken to all witnesses also during this time, please also disregard everything anyone has ever told you about the case. It’s not us saying so, it’s Mr Summers.

We would like to call the attention of our readers to 6:48 of the video. It shows very clearly how Mr Summers cites witnesses in “The Eleventh Hour” book that he recognises he hasn’t spoken directly to them. A recurring way he does “investigative journalism” it seems.

The journalistic profession is not appearing very dignified from this book. We do think the Pulitzer committee should be more attentive as to who it nominates for their prize.

But let’s get to what matters about this Summers & Swan piece of…

The first and obvious thing is that it’s just too ridiculous for its ridiculousness not to be intentional.

It seems to be a collation of the sex-assault-spree that SY claims befell solely on British little girls whenever on holiday in the Algarve. It seems one of the girls was not British but it’s not clarified of which nationality she was.

Assaults only known to UK as the Portuguese authorities, namely the GNR, have denied any knowledge of them.

We think the book was just another rock thrown against the McCann edifice to further erode it.

If someone tells you that a greasy hamburger, chips and a soda is the best diet to lose weight would you believe that person?

No, you wouldn’t.

But if the same person was to say that the bun is of whole wheat, the chips are steamed and roasted without any fat and the soda is sugarless, you might even start to be convinced.

However, if that person, realising your hesitation, would, instead of the above, say that the adding of an extra dollop of lard and a thick slice of bacon would make the whole thing even more dietetic and good for your heart, wouldn’t that just drive any and all possibilities of ever being believed?

Yes, it would.

To highlight by ridiculousness the ridiculousness of something, so making it even more ridiculous than it already is, is certainly not to help it gain any sort of credibility, on the contrary, it’s to confirm that it hasn’t any.

                     Mr Summers' "Mummyman"

When Mr Summers says he’s taking for real the 18-sex-assault-spree he’s adding that extra slice of thick, fat bacon and when he invents the Mummyman he’s really spreading lard all around, even on the soda.

About the Mummyman, something has to be said. Allegedly, a girl of 8 on seeing an adult man enter her room in the middle of the night wearing a surgical mask, asks if he's her daddy. This reveals that this little girl is used to, or at least not surprised to see her daddy enter her room in the middle of the night wearing a surgical mask. If this isn't a red flag we don'yt know what one is. To aggravate this, even though, allegedly, the adult male replied he was, she still felt the need to ask the man if he was her uncle. So, both her father and her uncle seem to enter her room wearing a surgical masks. All this in the presence of her 10 yr old sister who remains silent, thus indicating that it wasn't the first time she witnessed this. Lastly, the man left and both children remained silent until they were sure the man left. Only then did they go and warn parents.

If this is true, British authorities must investigate this at once. It's not a problem of a burglary but one of these 2 girls being in a very serious situation. As far as we know, no one has done anything about this. It can only mean one thing: everyone knows this never happened. What a sick game this has become.

Back to the diet analogy, Mr Summers presents the slice of bacon, the 18-sex-assault-spree, very poorly.

According to The Telegraph  (09SEPT14), the book says the following:

“Five of six attacks had targeted British children. The victims had all been girls, most of them nine or 10 years old. One, in Silves, had been only three years old – almost the same age as Madeleine.

(...)

There had, in fact, been 18 break-ins that involved children, he said, in properties where British families stayed between 2004 and 2010: five in Carvoeiro, nine at locations near either Carvoeiro or Albufeira, one in the village of Vilamoura and three in Praia da Luz itself.”

Simple maths: 5 (Carvoeiro) + 9 (Carvoeiro/ Albufeira) + 1 (Vilamoura) + 3 (Praia da Luz) = 18 break-ins that involved children

Where is the Silves one? The one with the victim who was “almost the same age as Madeleine”?

This is not a question of not doing investigative journalism but of not being able to do simple arithmetic. There weren’t 18 break-ins involving children but 19. According to Mr Summers, that is. We think SY should take this up with him, as we have heard from SY there were 18. Is Mr Summers calling SY incompetent? We think he is.

And why call it break-in? What is a break-in involving children that does not have sexual motivation? A break-in with the intent of stealing a child’s toys? A break-in to read a bedtime story? Or help the child fall asleep by singing a song?

To abduct? 19 trial runs? In 19 attempts, not one says the burglar tried to take the child.

He’s not being ridiculous as much as he’s showing what he’s saying is what is indeed ridiculous.

We think we are seeing a Streisand effect but with a twist.

Wikipedia says that the Streisand effect is “the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.”

The twist with this book, for us, is that calling the attention to the ridiculousness of the official versions of what happened to Maddie is intended. As we said, it’s just too ridiculous for it to be unintentional. It is, in our opinion, very intentional.

It didn’t backfire because it was meant to backfire all along. That was the objective it was to have, in our opinion. Maybe not as intensely as it did but the Maddie case does generate true passion in many and the reaction to the book simply proved that.

The infamous literary trilogy on Maddie
If Danny Collins “Vanished” had the objective of showing that only a dimwit would think that Maddie had died that night, Summers’ book “Looking for Madeleine” is clearly trying to show that only a dimwit believes in anything SY is literally saying about the case.

As we have been explaining, we think SY is saying many a truthful thing. Only it’s saying it in the midst of ridiculous lies, childish fantasies and self-humiliation of this sick high-level game the Maddie case has become.

We think Mr Summers was duped. Either by his own narcissism and the establishment conveniently exploited it, or when commissioned like a mercenary.

If commissioned, the “contractors” knew full well that were hiring someone so vain and with no scruples that he would be easily manoeuvred to write exactly what was intended for him to write.

If by his own narcissism, the same reasoning is applicable as soon as the establishment had knowledge he was writing a book on the case.

Either way, it’s our opinion he was fed information as it was convenient to achieve the purported objectives.

In our opinion, Mr Summers researched the internet as much as he spoke to witnesses. He e-mailed some to only have the possibility to saying they didn’t reply. Note how the intended Streisand effect works on this specific point. Mr Summers call bloggers haters. This spikes peoples’ curiosity to go and look for themselves and then they will discover that the word “hate” is transparently misused by the author and so backfire against him. Neat little trick, isn’t it?

To use the word “hater” at this point in time about those who contest the official version as to what happened to Maddie is to wear bell-bottom trousers as if they were still fashion. They aren’t and neither is the word “hater”.

One has to be lacking some quality present in the normal human being to align oneself with the losing side to sell vinegar as champagne, especially when the issue has been dealt with in detail for the past 7 years on the internet by many educated people.

We witnessed a similar objective with Kate’s book. Both, in our opinion, were commissioned, unknown to its authors, to backfire and both succeeded in doing so.

here
Mr Summers’ much faster than Kate’s. On the 1st day at half price, amazing. To have the trilogy Collins (£6.39), McCann (£3.86) and Summers (£9.00) selling as a package all for the original price  of one of them (£19.25) is quite humiliating.

To say the book was coordinated with the Lisbon trial doesn’t make any sense. This process even for the Portuguese is baffling. The process doesn’t have that much complexity to justify the timespan but when one employs top of the art lawyers one does get top of the art legal games. Add to that the unexpected change of lawyer of one of the defendants and we’re expecting having final allegations still to happen 8 months after they were initially planned – in the beginning of January 2014 – with still no date set for them.

About coordinating anything with the Portuguese justice system, namely with court sessions, we think that Portugal has proven very clearly that it is an impossible task. No one is able to coordinate with the random. If the Scriptures were written based on having them coordinated with the Portuguese justice system, we are sure Christ’s resurrection would have been postponed to this day due to some legal technicality.

About its contents, the “discrepancies/omissions” are too many. It would be like pointing olives individually on a tree ready for the picking.

We just want to point out one: Payne’s visit to 5A on May 3rd. It seems it’s mentioned only once and out of context.

For us, it was interesting not the fact it was missing but to see how people reacted to this absence. Almost in the opposite manner they reacted to the fact that Richard Hall did not show the Tapas esplanade – he showed the same picture The Mirror showed on 13OCT13 as an appetizer for the UK Crimewatch.

Tapas Bar as per The Mirror
Tapas Bar as per Richard Hall

One falsity was noted, the other wasn’t. By the same people claiming the same justice for Maddie. Very interesting. And although we know these very words have just been written in the midst of what some say to be a lack of précis in a language which they have some difficult to recognise as English, we also know that those who we intend to read them, have done so.

We don’t see in what way Mr Summers’ book can benefit the McCanns. In our opinion it only seriously causes them harm as it has aggravated even further the hostility of public opinion that already was very much against them. Not all that shines is gold and certainly not all that is apparently in favour of the McCanns favours them.

The BH in the various internet sites, including their own, struggled in vain to extract any positivity from this episode. It simply wasn’t possible. The book was simply way too ridiculous.

We only see it as reinforcing the evident weakness the McCanns are showing.


People have witnessed this ever increasing “weakening” of the McCanns. They may not recognise it explicitly but their words do.

But besides ourselves we have seen no other offer an explanation as to why this is so nor when it started happening.

They cling on to 1 thing: whitewashing.

All, apparently is a whitewashing campaign. They expect the outcome of SY’s investigation to have been a panicking burglar who killed Maddie. This will exonerate the McCanns of any evil doing. If it exonerates the McCanns then it's them doing it.

Yes, it will. If that happens. But let’s suppose SY is able to find a name, a face and a plausible story to fit such a role. That means that we are wrong about the McCanns being weak, as they will have been the one who pulled all the strings to obtain such a desired outcome for them.

But then why concede Maddie dead so early on? Wouldn’t it be much more credible, if one is to whitewash, to find first the burglar and then confirm all the worst fears by having him confess that he killed Maddie? Why play with fire now by accepting that it is possible from the existing evidence to plausibly come to the conclusion that she died that night in that apartment?

From the McCann point of view, it makes no sense to use the words “death” and “murder” before “burglar” is caught. To them, we think, recognising there is indeed evidence of Maddie’s death would make what they’re doing against Mr Amaral to be one enormous and unacceptable act of pure evil. We know it is but do the McCanns want to be seen as evil? No, we don't think they do.

And if the McCanns are controlling SY, why on earth did Bundleman remain on their site when the Met has very clearly said he was an innocent passer-by, Crèche Dad?

What have those protecting “paedo-Payne” (or more exactly “nepio-Payne”) to gain in having a weak McCanns?

Only weakened McCanns can explain current events. We have given publicly to our reasons as to why and when this turn of events happened and are still waiting for others to do so.

About the 2 minutes in which the McCanns were dealt with in BBC’s CW “Living with Murder” of 16SEPT14, was, in our opinion, just another go at reinforcing the link between the word “murder” and the McCanns.

65 comments:

  1. I think that public perception has been slowly and surely changed over the last 12 months - by one little thing after another - a steady trickle in a discrete manner. It has all been part of a single process or directive. Are you able to summarise the purpose of this - I am imagining it is part of the game that is being played.
    Thanks for this post - someone with brains is orchestrating this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 19 Sep 2014 09:28:00,

      We have, we think, summarised it in our post "Doomed Pieces, Emerging Heroes":
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/08/doomed-pieces-emerging-heroes.html#comment-form

      "But we saw the following moves – if we miss any we do apologise.

      1. The 3,000 phone calls showing that phone records from that night were indeed compromising.

      2. The birth of the 3 Burglars, emerging from an “analysis” of those 3,000 phone calls, this was to show that it was a group. No longer only have an individual involved but a group – a collective endeavour in the fulfilment of the task – PRESENT in PdL on the night of the 3rd;

      3. Saying that Ocean Club management kept from authorities the occurrence of burglaries in apartments (or was it they had lost keys of apartments?) prior to that week, with the objective to show that the resort was also involved in that collective task;

      4. The 3 Ocean Club workers with the objective to further confirm Ocean Club was involved;

      5. The UK CW showing that Gerry was Smithman;

      6. The assault-spree with 2 episodes and 2 objectives. The first to tell the public Maddie was dead when she was taken from apartment and the second to show the “collectiveness” was not limited to PdL but spread over the Algarve (we also showed that this had a simultaneous objective of blackmailing the PJ into “asking” SY for a liaison officer into their investigation);

      7. The June SY Circus in PdL, with the main objective of getting inside the PJ investigation but also to show that deceased Euclides Monteiro is a person of interest, that the water treatment station is a location of interest, to confirm that Maddie is dead, to show UK Police trusts tracking dogs and to give a window of opportunity for SY to find evidence (we will speak of this later);

      8. The 4 arguido stunt, whereby Murat is brought back into the picture via Malinka and having the Ocean Club now involved with a driver;

      9. The overall exaggerated expenditure of Operation Grange. The Times reported in May this year (after helicopter ride but before invasion), that it was then estimated at 5,350,000£. If the PdL SY Circus cost between 100,000£ and 200,000£, where were the other 26 to 53 similar operations in the past 3 years? And we have read higher estimations than the one referred by The Times. These figures are based on what? Who is providing this information? The 3,5M£ figure represents a daily expenditure of around 5,000£. Every single day. Or of 150,000£ a month. Every single month. Is that realistic? These exaggerated numbers of tax-payers' money being spent on Grange have in our opinion been put out to even further exacerbate the public opinion against the McCanns making their protection much more difficult."

      Delete
    2. Thanks, great - and yes appreciate you have summarised in 'Doomed Pieces - Emerging Heroes' - I was being a little lazy

      Delete
  2. Agree. Anything that widens awareness about Maddie is against the McCanns. Anything that keeps her alive in the minds of people also. Any piece of news pro-Mcs is a poisoned present!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rupert Murdoch was supporting Alex Salmond - enthusiastically - until he saw he could be on the losing side. He then changed his tune.
    I think the same may be happening with support for the McCanns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 19 Sep 2014 10:04:00,

      The only reason we can find for McCanns' evident weakening is that those who initially protected them have decided to no longer provide that protection. Or that the protection they were providing was being inconvenient for them.

      We think we have been witnessing the change of tune but being careful to save face.

      Delete
  4. http://www.leighday.co.uk/News/2014/September-2014/Abuse-Law-experts-call-for-investigation-into-fail

    Summers book and its references to CEOP is an own goal

    ReplyDelete
  5. The authors response to public criticism on their FB page:

    LOOKING FOR MADELEINE,
    our book on the disappearance of three-year-old Madeleine McCann, has caused a furor since it was published late last week. We have read and noted all the comments posted on our Facebook page and a large number of people have voiced suspicions of the little girl's parents, and unbridled antipathy towards them. Such people, it seems evident, won't allow facts to disabuse them of their views. Those whose work undermines their beliefs must "be part of the conspiracy."

    We'll continue to post items of interest, and hope reasonable people will read our book and our work, and continue to comment on it. This page, however, is not a forum in which we shall permit others to defame or libel, spread malicious gossip, or incite others to do so.

    Civil discussion or exchange of views will be welcomed, but those with no respect for that principle must expect their posts to be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned. There are plenty of other places on the Net that will allow them to shout distortions of the facts and spread black propaganda.

    For our part, we'd urge anyone interested to read 'Looking for Madeleine'. When time permits, we'll happily answer questions. Thank you for your interest.

    Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 19 Sep 2014 11:42:00,

      We have just placed a link to this post as entry on Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan's FB page saying "Mr Summers, please answer yourself"

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

      Delete
    2. It seems our entry on the Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan's FB page has been deleted.

      It seems that Mr Summers was unable to respond to Mr Summers.

      Not surprised. We would also find it very difficult to do so if we were in his position.

      Delete
    3. I noticed that but i also noticed that there was a lot of fighting between the pros and the antis which he appears to be quite cintent to allow. Sort of supports again what you say about the intentional effect

      Delete
  6. Textusa - Flabbergasted. This is the post that finally removed all doubt that you are spot on in your understanding of this case. I firmly believe that that Mr Summers is not that stupid to have written this book through his own narcissism. A man on a blind horse could have perdicted the outcry that was going to meet it's publication. No this book was commissioned for the very reasons you have written. Take a look at Amazon, a lot of people using amazon have limited knowledge of the police files or books/videos written in opposition to the abduction theory. The reviews on Summers book have developed into a war between the pros and the antis, the scores are closer than any perdictions in the referendum (Hard luck Scotland by the way) 19 - 1 stars and 19 - 5 stars, with the anti's pretending to have read the book using their space to direct the stunned novice to books/vidoes/files.The pros like the Antis are also pretending to have read the book but using their space to attack the anti's (not very successfully) . In actual fact most I would suspect were like myself started reading it but realising the nonsense it was gave it up as a bad job. Summers is (was) as serious journalist WT? how high does this go up.

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police

    Sunday Times sued by McCanns over story which wrongly claimed evidence was withheld from police | Press Gazette

    William Turvill 19 September 2014

    The parents of missing child Madeleine McCann have sued The Sunday Times for libel over a story which they said gave the impression they had hindered the investigation into her disappearance.

    According to publisher News UK the claim has been settled.

    Kate and Gerry McCann took issue with a front-page story from last year, which the couple said suggested they had kept "secret from investigating authorities a crucial piece of evidence concerning the disappearance of their daughter".

    In addition to the article, which was published on 27 October and remained online until 8 November, the McCanns also made reference to readers' comments left on the article - in High Court papers seen by Press Gazette.

    The story, for which the paper apologised on 28 December, said: “The critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators.”

    The title reported that an intelligence report produced for the McCanns contained “crucial E-Fits” of a man who was identified as the prime suspect last year. The paper said that the “McCanns and their advisers sidelined the report and threatened to sue its authors if they divulged its contents”.

    The Insight story also quoted a source close to the McCanns as saying that the report was “hyper-critical of the people involved”.

    In their claim form, in which they were claiming unspecified damages, the McCanns said that the story was understood to mean that they had hindered "the search for [Madeleine] and the investigation into her disappearance by allowing the trail to go cold".

    They said that the story led to them having “suffered serious damage to their reputations and severe embarrassment and distress”.

    They also claimed that the paper's Insight team, which wrote the story, had not told their spokesman the full extent of the allegations which were to be made against them.

    The McCanns also said that the story did not include several points made to Insight by their spokesman. They said this denied them "a proper opportunity to inform the readers of The Sunday Times of the falsity of the allegations against them".

    On 1 November, the couple sent editor Martin Ivens an email headed: “Complaint letter – urgent”.

    cont

    ReplyDelete
  8. cont

    They said that the email, outlining what was wrong with the story with a “detailed rebuttal”, was responded to by executive editor Bob Tyrer six days later.

    The McCanns said in their claim form that he told them “we could have made some facts clearer in the story” and that “we could have published more of your pre-publication statement” but largely rejected their complaint.

    They said Tyrer offered them “three limited revisions” to the online article, publication of the statement from their spokesman and “an extremely limited” clarification in the corrections and clarifications column.

    On 8 November Gerry McCann wrote back noting his disappointment that the article remained online and he pointed to the readers’ comments below.

    The McCanns then consulted lawyers Carter Ruck, who wrote to The Sunday Times on 15 November “with proposed wording for an apology”.

    The Sunday Times published the following apology on 28 December:

    In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Anonymous 19 Sep 2014 17:17:00,

      Thank you for the link.

      "According to publisher News UK the claim has been settled."

      The question that has to answered before any assessment can be made is of claim settled is of 2013 or of 2014, as the one referred to in our post "Doomed Pieces, Emerging Heroes" appears to be of 2014

      Delete
    2. Textusa, could you please expand a little more one this? I'm curious about your opinion on this. Thank you.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 19 Sep 2014 22:44:00,

      Thank you for your comment. It allows us to clarify this further.

      Let’s do a timeline of what the article describes:

      1. Article in The Times published 27 October

      2. On 1 November, the couple sent editor Martin Ivens an email headed: “Complaint letter – urgent”.

      3. 7 November – This e-mail was responded to by executive editor Bob Tyrer six days later November. Tyrer offered them “three limited revisions” to the online article, publication of the statement from their spokesman and “an extremely limited” clarification in the corrections and clarifications column

      4. On 8 November Gerry McCann wrote back noting his disappointment that article is still online

      5. The McCanns then consulted lawyers Carter Ruck, who wrote to The Sunday Times on 15 November “with proposed wording for an apology”.

      6. The Sunday Times published the apology on 28 December

      This sequencing can, we think, be one about which can be said “according to publisher News UK the claim has been settled” was it starts with the article being published and culminates with published apology on 28 December.

      Apparently, this article is based on “High Court papers seen by Press Gazette”. Mr Turvill seems to have read McCanns’ claim. It’s very detailed. To the point of saying McCanns made reference to readers' comments left on the article online.

      The article doesn’t refer that McCanns in this claim express not being satisfied with the terms and contente of The Times apology.

      As the article is indeed detailed one would expect for this to have been referred had it happened. As it is not, one has to assume the case was closed, or settled, with the apology.

      All happened in 2013.

      The unconfirmed libel trial that was unveiled by Daniel Douglas in his tweet of 01AUG14 has, according to him, a case ref of HQ14D02886.

      We believe that HQ14, refers to current year, 2014.

      This, in our opinion, and based only on the info that is available to us, seems to show we’re talking about 2 different processes.

      The first, about e-fits, which the article says has been settled and the second, the one that is supposedly simmering somewhere in British Courts.

      If it was to be a single process then Douglas would be only in August 2014 referring to something that happened in the end of 2013. However his choice of words seem to indicate that the news were fresh ““Kate and Gerry McCann have filed a case against The Times in the High Court. Interesting. No details made public yet.” Why the “yet” about something that had already sometime?

      Also, we find very strange the Press Gazette article not saying anything about the eventual continuance of process after apology. Surely there would be a mail exchange where the McCanns, via their legal representatives, would express that they didn’t consider the apology sufficiently satisfactory and The Times responding they refused to apologise any further.

      The article doesn’t say any of this. As said above, the process seems to have run all its terms in 2013, finishing with the apology.

      As we said in “Doomed Pieces, Emerging Heroes” post, all needs to be confirmed. The Press Gazette article doesn’t help in this.

      Nor does it make us alter in anything we have said in the post.

      This could have been done to convey the idea the upcoming process is the second time round, to confirming the insatiable greed of the couple and to answer the question why are they doing it? Because they’ve done it before and succeeded so why not go for it again?

      If this article is the Establishment’s response to our post, then it could be interpreted as a very specious way of confusing both possible processes by implying The Times caved in to the McCanns. To have people put the issue behind their backs and consider it closed. But that would give us an importance we don’t think we have.

      Delete
  9. ** May 'should reflect' on doctor abuse **
    A former head of the UK's child protection unit says Theresa May should "reflect on her position" over the government's handling of the Myles Bradbury case.
    < http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-29283206 >

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gamble blames Teresa May!
      What a bloody cheek! How much effort is it to relay the work of the Canadian police to other police forces?

      Delete
    2. The Canadian police did all the spade work. How much effort and manpower does it take to inform police areas in UK?
      Blaming Theresa May for the situation is ridiculous.
      Why is Gamble saying this, rather than the person who took over from him in 2010?
      How was CEOP structured and how did it operate? That's what IPCC need to look at

      Delete
  10. The articles about the Mc's suing suggest it's The Sunday Times who are the target but refer to the same allegation around the withholding of evidence. There is suggestion that what was published in The Times about this in 2013, ending with an apology from them in Dec of the same year, won the Mc's an undisclosed amount that was settled out of court. Maybe Carter Ruck have found a loophole to sue the sister publication as it is administered by a separate editorial?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 20 Sep 2014 17:00:00,

      We don't know if a financial settlement was made or not. And that's exactly the point we tried to make. To settle is to settle and not necessarily to pay.

      It could be that both sides reached an agreement that didn't involve a financial settlement.

      What if the Times had produced further evidence to support their claim? Would CR withdraw their application?

      Or does an application made in 2014 refer to another claim, like we think it does, that has not been settled?

      We will have to wait and see.

      Delete
    2. So they settled out of court for £55k, using Carter-Ruck on a no win no fee basis, trying to claim the high ground on behalf of the ordinary man who wouldn't have the means to do it!

      Delete
  11. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Gazette

    Call blog's attention to:

    “High-profile owners and closureEdit
    Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law Matthew Freud became the new owner of Press Gazette in May 2005, in partnership with the former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan to raise around £600,000 to buy the title. The purchase was part of the break-up of Quantum Business Media by its owners, the venture-capital group ABN Amro Capital.[citation needed]
    On 19 October 2006, Freud announced that the magazine was for sale, citing as a reason indifference in the newspaper industry to the British Press Awards.[citation needed]
    The company owned by Freud and Morgan, Press Gazette Limited, subsequently entered administrative receivership.[citation needed]
    Initially, the receivers were unable to find another buyer for the magazine, and on 24 November 2006 it closed.[citation needed]”

    Sold on after Freud owned it.
    But are there still some Murdoch links? I would expect there would be.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It seems Summers' book has sold 2 dozen copies on Amazon. I think that is the best criticism.
    http://www.novelrank.com/asin/147221160X

    Amazon.com
    Last Sale: 1 day,
    11 hours
    September Sales: 1
    August Sales: N/A
    Current Rank: 400,563

    Amazon.co.uk
    Last Sale: 5 hours

    September Sales: 23
    August Sales: N/A
    Current Rank: 12,22

    Amazon.es
    Last Sale: unknown

    September Sales: 0
    August Sales: N/A
    Current Rank: 630,614

    ReplyDelete
  13. If Mcs had won reputational damages, why not publicise this, as money and a secret hearing isn't going to restore that reputation? If they did receive anything, then it's about cash, not reputation.

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10332-authors-of-looking-for-madeleine-talk-to-pat-kenny
    Warm climates attract paedophiles!!!
    Says Swan. Greece must be swarming with them!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pat Kenny (known in some sections in Ireland as 'the plank') doesn't do real investigative journalism. It's all about Kenny as a media personality. So, you can imagine the 'chemistry' involved between Kenny and S&S... ? Enough said. Not to be taken seriously at all.

      Delete
    2. If Swan is right then UK doesn't have many paedos...

      Delete
    3. 22.33
      We have so many of them in UK , it can't be the heat. Lolol
      This is the most ludicrous explanation of paedophilia I have ever heard
      What academic studies has she referenced for this bizarre hypothesis?
      UK should publicise this: graphs showing temperature rises with reported paedo activity.

      Delete
    4. Do Brit paedos become paedos and then go warm climates or do they go to warm climates and then and become paedos? Swan should answer that

      Delete
    5. So the best place to take your young daughter on holiday is anywhere in the Antarctic (just watch out for those predatory penguin paedos though) or maybe northern Siberia, the Canadian arctic, or Tromso.

      Do these Swan and Summers realize that they are being laughed at, ridiculed on all levels?

      Delete
    6. Oh, that blasted sun! Not only does it give us skin cancer, now it also makes us become paedophiles!

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 21 Sep 2014 23:55:00,

      They know very well they are being ridiculed.

      In this article it says Sun describes book as explosive.But it seems explosive as in blowing up under authors' feet:

      http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/torrent-of-hate-for-new-madeleine-book-288012.html#.VB-4f76q4R8.twitter

      ‘Torrent of hate’ for new Madeleine book

      Monday, September 22, 2014
      By Christy Parker

      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”.

      -Looking For Madeleine is published by Headline Press.

      © Irish Examiner Ltd. All rights reserved

      Article also being debated here:
      http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10290p40-authors-summers-and-swan-reply-to-critics-of-their-book-about-madeleine

      Delete
    8. Summers and Swan FB page delete reasonable questions but allow heated exchanges between BHs and opponents, because they want to portray anyone who questions McCanns as haters.

      Difficult to do that with us, as we say they loved their kids and also because we are very clear in saying that we don't think they neglected them.

      Delete
    9. They're certainly fueling the fires. Quite deliberately it would seem. All to raise awareness of their book? I hope not, that has already backfired. Very irresponsible behaviour from a couple who call themselves professionals. Christy Parker seems to be a pen for hire in their local town of Youghal. He's on LinkedIn as Christy Parker, journalist at blahblah (his words)

      Delete
    10. To Textusa. You say above "In this article it says Sun describes book as explosive.But it seems explosive as in blowing up under authors' feet:"

      I hope the author has some rags available to wrap around his feet!!

      Delete
    11. The Richard and Judy book club labels it “incredibly chilling”. Agree, it's incredibly chilling to realise that someone can put something like this book out.

      Delete
  15. Swan quotes this as a theory but gives no ref. The interviewer is so lacking in curiosity or journalistic instinct, he doesn't question this breakthrough scientific finding, which could advance worldwide knowledge of paedophilia

    ReplyDelete
  16. I propose the following conspiracy theory: Summers and Swan don't exist. They're fictional characters. No one can be this stupid.
    It's ridiculous but not as much as the book they published. If it was to make money, it isn't working in Amazon. And I don't think it's doing well in bookstores.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "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”."

    Humm...Kate's refusal to answer the police questions, for one! Coming up with every excuse under the sun NOT to participate in a proper police reconstruction, running back to the UK as soon as they were made "arguidos" despite previous (public) vows not to leave Portugal without Madeleine, the many different and contradicting version of events told to the police and the media...
    Never having physically looked for Madeleine on the night she vanished, never having taken seriously any of the many "sightings", I mean, never having immediately gone to the places where they daughter was supposedly seen, but willingly and gladly travel everywhere there was a money making or fame seeking opportunity!
    Need I say more, Mr. Summers:::?

    ReplyDelete
  18. The comments from readers that I have read on various blogs/forums dedicated to Maddie about this book only confirms what this post says: the blunder is much too obvious. This is not the usual let's insult the Portuguese and show we stand united against them. This is insulting everyone. The book doesn't even challenge the intelligence of a 3yr old. I hope authors are satisfied and found worthwhile having their careers as writers forever ruined by their own doing.

    ReplyDelete
  19. It seems that among many other flaws the Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan's book has, acknowledging credits was one:
    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/Book.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pamalam denunciou directamente aos autores , no Twitter, pelo uso abusivo das traduções constantes nessa ligação.

      Parece também que eles estão apenas, os S&S, muito agradecidos a Len Port do Algarve news wiatch , também ele da mesma nacionalidade/ origem do summertime.

      Delete
  20. "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."

    Isn't his an own goal? Who in the world has 30,000 people "intent on sabotaging" something they have done?
    Are these 30,000 wrong or does the book deserve the criticism it's getting?
    Anyone complaining that 30,000 people from all over the world have got together against them out of pure hatred is to be completely deluded.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I not condoning what summers has done in writing this book but if his purpose was simply to make money out of the case,he could not do anything only write a very pro mccann book. Sorry if im rambling but a lot of people think he should have wrote a book which highlighted all the inconsistecies and lies as well as other evidence against them. But surely while a investigation is on going you just cant publish a book which highlights evidence against the suspects can you?. As i say im not condoning what he has done but the choice is either write a pro mccann book or dont write any book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They shouldn't have written it.

      Delete
    2. I know but do you see my point?. Im sure Summers is not that much in need of money to go down the route of selling his dignity and reputation to produce this book, there has to be more to it, prehaps designed as a guage of public opinion on the case, prehaps a warning to others who would be considering adapting a pro mccann stance when the investigation is complete, prehaps to hype the whole thing up again in time for the MSM presenting the resukts of the investigation. However whatever the reason, a lot of people are mystified why a book presenting the evidence has not been published, pat brown has said she cant get hers published. My point is that its becausevof libel laws. GA was able tonpublish his on the grounds that the canns used the press to libel him and he nad the right to defend hid reputation ( i think correct me if im wrong)

      Delete
    3. S and S must have been given a handsome payout to front this scam as they will never be able to be taken seriously again. This will be their final book.

      Delete
    4. How I see it is that a lot of the comments made to Summers was to provide evidence to contradict the nonsense he was writing and rightly so but I trying to go back to the reasons for writing the book. He claims his daughter asked him or his wife how long would you look for me (very thought provoking question from a 3 year year old). So presumably if he really believes the child was abducted and if the book was written to further the search, it should gave us a clear guide to where the author thinks the child is or what happened to her. IMO the book doesn’t fulfil that objective it just presents a lot of information which the investigators already knew so he is not furthering the search in any way. I have to say it never ceases to amaze me how many people use their own children to back up their support of the parents “ There but for the grace of god” “we have all done it haven’t we”.........Again I know I’m rambling but back to my point if it was to make money he can only write a book that doesn’t prejudice an investigation or libel the parents. That’s the question I would like to ask Mr Summers Why???. PS in response to your comment he is 77 maybe it was intended to be his pension fund lol

      Delete
  22. Saw this and thought very apt. Would like to share it here.
    http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10274p150-book-already-half-price-on-amazon

    Re: BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! !

    Post Clay Regazzoni Today at 8:25 am
    Clive James' poem "The Book of My Enemy Has Been Remaindered" could have been written for just this occasion.

    The book of my enemy has been remaindered
    And I am pleased.
    In vast quantities it has been remaindered
    Like a van-load of counterfeit that has been seized
    And sits in piles in a police warehouse,
    My enemy's much-prized effort sits in piles
    In the kind of bookshop where remaindering occurs.
    Great, square stacks of rejected books and, between them, aisles
    One passes down reflecting on life's vanities,
    Pausing to remember all those thoughtful reviews
    Lavished to no avail upon one's enemy's book --
    For behold, here is that book
    Among these ranks and banks of duds,
    These ponderous and seemingly irreducible cairns
    Of complete stiffs.


    The book of my enemy has been remaindered
    And I rejoice.
    It has gone with bowed head like a defeated legion
    Beneath the yoke.
    What avail him now his awards and prizes,
    The praise expended upon his meticulous technique,
    His individual new voice?
    Knocked into the middle of next week
    His brainchild now consorts with the bad buys
    The sinker, clinkers, dogs and dregs,
    The Edsels of the world of moveable type,
    The bummers that no amount of hype could shift,
    The unbudgeable turkeys.


    Yea, his slim volume with its understated wrapper
    Bathes in the blare of the brightly jacketed Hitler's War Machine,
    His unmistakably individual new voice
    Shares the same scrapyard with a forlorn skyscraper
    Of The Kung-Fu Cookbook,
    His honesty, proclaimed by himself and believed by others,
    His renowned abhorrence of all posturing and pretense,
    Is there with Pertwee's Promenades and Pierrots--
    One Hundred Years of Seaside Entertainment,
    And (oh, this above all) his sensibility,
    His sensibility and its hair-like filaments,
    His delicate, quivering sensibility is now as one
    With Barbara Windsor's Book of Boobs,
    A volume graced by the descriptive rubric
    "My boobs will give everyone hours of fun".


    Soon now a book of mine could be remaindered also,
    Though not to the monumental extent
    In which the chastisement of remaindering has been meted out
    To the book of my enemy,
    Since in the case of my own book it will be due
    To a miscalculated print run, a marketing error--
    Nothing to do with merit.
    But just supposing that such an event should hold
    Some slight element of sadness, it will be offset
    By the memory of this sweet moment.
    Chill the champagne and polish the crystal goblets!
    The book of my enemy has been remaindered
    And I am glad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's meant to be ironic?

      Delete
  23. Someone is doing a good job reviewing S and S book:
    http://my-mccann-thoughts.blogspot.co.uk/

    ReplyDelete
  24. Margaret Hall, babysitter, mentioned by S&S page 62.
    Apart from the fact she says parents were playing tennis when it was dark (floodlit courts available?), the child was described as a BOY of 6 in many earlier press reports.
    She saw "Ratman" and reported it to M3. The PJ dismissed the sighting as outdated and of no relevance.
    The sketch provided of the man was hilarious.
    Of course, she described him as Potruguese. But it wasn't reported to the PJ at the time.
    And by November 2007, Hall says it was a girl, but doesn't state her age.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 23 Sep 2014 15:11:00

      Thank you for your comment.

      To help readers understand where you got "Ratman" from:
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARGARET_HALL.htm

      Delete
  25. Mail in 2008 has unnamed nanny looking after 6 year old boy with suspect who was identical to Robert Murat trying to lift shutters.
    As if RM would try to do that, knowing how shutters worked.
    There was a concerted attempt going on here to implicate him and Michaela by Metodo 3, who were behind all of these sightings.
    SY collected 30 boxes from M3 offices and seem to be working their way through the contents

    ReplyDelete
  26. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506446/Madeleine-New-witness-confronted-man-lurking-near-apartment-days-disappeared.html

    S and S give anonymous abductor sightings. This may add some names, as reported at the time.
    Karen Sixsmith saw a woman who looked like Michaela Walczuch, who came to the door with a man, saying they were Jehovah's Witnesses. The man seemed anxious to get inside the flat where she was staying with her husband (Ian) and young daughter, who is blonde with blue eyes, like M and was so concerned she called the police immediately.
    This was 6 weeks before the Mcs came to PDL
    This was reported to Metodo 3 it seems, but nothing in PJ files.
    The rest of the article names Paul Gordon and British nanny looking after 6 year old boy who sees a man identical to Robert Murat, trying to lift shutters of a ground floor flat.
    Is this Margaret Hall? Or were there 2 nannies looking after 6 year olds, one boy, one girl, who were both troubled by intruders? Maybe Margaret Hall decided the intruder was Portuguese rather than a Murat look-alike? Unfortunately, Sooty and Sweep didn't research this.

    (the latter are puppets from a children's show from years ago but seems appropriate for S and S)

    ReplyDelete
  27. In my opinion, Gamble has a lot to do with the publication of this book.
    His desperate defence on FB and Twitter is very unbecoming for a professional. I wonder if S and S feel they have been used and abused and their reputation tarnished by association? If so, they must be furious that the book has bombed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 24 Sep 2014 10:54:00,

      We also happen to think you’re spot on.

      If one looks now, knowing the contents of the book, and tries to fit within the objectives of the Sky News Report, one is unable to see any link whatsoever.

      The SKR was about how the British bungled things up. Where is that in the book?

      The book is about confirming Praia da Luz was indeed the Village of the Damned and 5A the Apartment of the doomed. Where is that in the SKR?

      So why use the book in the SKR unless what you really want to "use" the book?

      Delete
  28. I believe there's already a pdf copy of the book
    If this is true then even trickling sales will stop. What a fiasco.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Textusa
    Do you think the papers might be keeping serialisation for when damages trial resumes? Or is it fatally wounded by derision, copyright complaints and abysmal sales figures?
    Would more publicity generate sales or further humiliation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 25 Sep 2014 15:28:00,

      We're seeing a repeat performance as with what happened with K's book, only in this case even more humiliating.

      We think it is fatally wounded. But not by derision but because that was the intent of all parties except the authors. And of some who were "convinced" to help.

      No need to explore it any further. To do so would be to overdo it.

      Delete
  30. http://pastebin.com/U4hF5jLp bewk

    ReplyDelete
  31. I believe the Mccanns would have had their phones hacked back in 2007. Hacking had been going on for years before madeleine vanished and it was something we the public and presumably the mccanns were not aware of. As the mccanns were the No.1 news story their phones would definitely have been hacked. Gerry would later have been aware of this hence his involvement in 'hacked off'. The mccanns and their team cannot contain all the information available on them, try as they may. The missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle must be in the hands of the media hence the superinjunctions the mccanns have in place preventing papers from reporting the true facts of this story. Once the lid blows on this saga the papers will have a field day.

    It has become evident over the years how the mccanns and their team have manipulated the truth and tailored their story for fit in with the ridiculous abductor scenario.

    Thank you Textusa for your analytical blog, may the truth be revealed.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.

Textusa