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.