This
review is from: Looking For Madeleine
(Hardcover)
The advertising blurb states that ‘the
authors demonstrate that the speculation
that the McCanns played a part in their
daughter’s fate is unfounded.’
Surely that means that a significant
part of the book looks at all the
reasons why sceptics claim the parents
might be involved, then repudiates them
with logical argument and with new
research material.
And, a definitive and independent book
as the publisher claims this is, would
need to interview the main players: the
parents, their tapas friends, Senor
Amaral and independent witnesses like
the Smith family who saw a man carrying
a child that evening. It doesn’t; none
of these people have talked to the
authors which is not surprising
considering that the case is still open.
This book is a combination of madeleine
by Kate McCann and a rehash of various
sightings/news articles over the years.
One has to remember that many media
articles are based on press releases
issued by the McCann PR team. Indeed,
one poster on a popular internet site
suggests that the McCanns were the ghost
writers of this book!
I don’t feel the authors had an open
mind as they don’t question actions by
the McCanns which have raised doubts in
the public mind.
For example they don’t ask why the
McCanns didn’t use the paying
babysitting service provided by the
nannies who worked in the daytime
crèche. They only mention the evening
crèche, as Kate did in her book saying
it did not meet her needs as her
children were in bed before it opened.
She also said in her book that she would
not have wanted to leave them with a
stranger (babysitter) yet she left them
in the crèche all day with the same
girls who were (initially) strangers.
She praised the nannies in her book yet
never mentioned the option of using
their services in the evening. Why would
a group of well paid professionals opt
to get up every 30 minutes from their
dinner to check children when a
satisfactory (paying) babysitting
service was available?
Kate has justified the checking service
by feeling so safe in the resort. But
parents use babysitters not to deter the
million to one chance of a kidnapping
but to deal with children waking up/bad
dreams/need a drink/ wet nappies/minor
health issues etc.
It is not credible that the McCanns and
their friends opted for an interrupted
dinner rather than paying a babysitter.
This makes the abduction story highly
suspect.
Why do Summers and Swan, themselves the
parents of three young children, not
raise this issue?
Another issue the authors don’t raise,
except in passing, is the setting up of
a private limited company only days
after Madeleine’s disappearance. I have
published original research on this
company Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No
Stone Unturned on http://mccannfiles.com/
The audited accounts of this company,
despite a commitment in the book
madeleine that it would be open and
transparent ‘whatever it cost,’ have
contained only the minimum information
required by law, apart from the accounts
for the period May 2007-March 2008 where
detail was given, but which raised more
questions than it answered. The accounts
are not on the official McCann website.
Why not?
Many people have queried the need for,
and the secrecy of the company. Why has
this not been addressed by the authors?
One interesting quotation from the book
about the company:
‘The McCanns have not sought to profit
from their situation – and Madeleine’s
Fund has built in provisions to ensure
this does not occur.’
They do not explain what those
provisions are. It is not good enough to
state something as a fact and not back
it up.
The authors do this again in Chapter 15
which starts with the statement ‘there
was never the smallest shred of fact or
evidence to inculpate Maddie’s parents
in any way at all.’
Even to someone whose knowledge of the
case is limited, this statement is
obviously untrue.
The authors do not mention the sworn
statement made by the
Gaspars, two doctors who went on an
earlier holiday with the group. This
statement has caused much concern among
those who follow this case. While it may
not indicate anything untoward, it was
for unexplained reasons held back by the
UK police for months before being passed
to Portugal. It can be read on http:///mccannfiles.com/
Surely the content of this statement and
the delay in passing it to the
Portuguese authorities is worthy of
analysis by the authors?
I was very concerned by the use of the
loaded word ‘haters’ to describe those
who doubt the McCanns. Chapters 15 and
16 deal with prominent doubters (my
preferred word), and the authors' bias
comes through.
For example they mention that the
website http://mccannfiles.com set up in
2007 by Nigel Moore has long had a
donate button and still does now. Why is
this negative? They admit that he,
according to press reports, gives the
website work his virtual full time
attention. Isn’t it reasonable for him
to suggest that people who use the mass
of information he provides make a
voluntary donation towards his running
costs?
They write about Bren Ryan, former
McCann doubter, who changed her mind
‘after reading the police files.’ But
they do not state what therein was the
cause. It would have been very
interesting to hear her reasons. By way
of contrast it would have been pertinent
to have comments from someone who became
a doubter after reading the police
files.
In summary, it’s surprising that a pair
of authors with such impressive CVs have
come up with this rehash of the
information and misinformation already
in the public domain. This book is not
investigative journalism. Its
publication has created a new mystery.
Why have the authors put their
reputation on the line by producing a
book like this? |
