"Looking for Madeleine" by Summers and Swan: A Book Review by Profiler Pat Brown - Part Two
Darlie did not immediately scream for help to save her children (two boys who were stabbed to death). What she most wanted the police to know was that someone else committed the crime. The next most important thing was to convey the attack came from outside the home. Then she wanted to make sure it was known that she was a victim. Oh, yeah, and, by the way, the children were stabbed as well. Darlie is on death row as of today.
Now, what struck me the minute I opened up Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan's book was the Author's Note. Pay attention to the very first thing these authors want you to believe, the very first thing. Then, note the second most important point, and the third. I will reproduce the Authors' Note in full.
The authors wish to make clear at the outset that, after more than two years studying this controversial case, they have seen not a shred of evidence to indicate that Gerry and Kate McCann, any member of their holiday group, or Robert Murat, were at any stage - in May 2007 or subsequently - guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann's disappearance or the repercussions that followed.
Allegations or innuendos about their role made or published by others, when referenced in the text of the book, are published only in the interests of reporting the history of the case- and to demonstrate the very point that such allegations are based on no factual evidence or are simply egregious.
This book has been researched and written independently of Gerry and Kate McCann.
So, the most important thing is NOT that the authors are going to be objective and allow the reader to hear all the theories, all the expert opinions, and allow them to deduce where they believe the truth lies. No, the most important issue is to shout out that the McCanns are innocent, so innocent, in fact, that there is not even the smallest scintilla of evidence that should raise an eyebrow. The second most important point they want people to get is that anyone who dares to question the McCanns is egregious in doing so because - although police detectives and profilers and numerous other professionals doubt the McCanns' innocence - these two journalist know better than any of them that there is not a shred of evidence that should have led any of these professionals to such a conclusion. Hence, they are all hacks and haters.
And, the third most important reason for this book is that the authors want the readers to believe that the McCanns in no way influenced their decision to write this book, did not influence what they researched and who they interviewed, nor did they influence what was written or have any say in the final manuscript. This is what they want readers to believe although this final sentence of the Authors' Note does not actually say that; the sentence simply says they did some work on their own as doing something independently does not mean that there is not a directive, there is not oversight, and there is not a final approval.
For supposedly objective journalists, this opening speech is markedly bizarre for two peoople who just want to tell a story, to report what happened, to lay out the facts.
These two people are on a mission to exonerate the McCanns and crush any opposition. I wonder if they were cheaper than Carter-Ruck.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
September 19, 2014
"Looking For Madeleine" by Summers and Swan: A Book Review by Profiler Pat Brown - Part One
By Pat Brown
Rating: 
Published: July 27, 2011What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.
7 comments:
Hi Pat, I believe, as one of your posters already mentioned, that the man who asked and paid for this timely work of propaganda was the McCann's millionaire backer Mr. Brian Kennedy, the man who once told a BBC reporter that he would support the couple till he died.
Whether you decide to buy the book or not that is the first thing you see; the McCanns are not guilty; we've demonstrated that those who believe they are do not base their opinion on facts and the McCanns had no input in this impartial work of ours. Message delivered, objective accomplished.
I found it interesting that you said that Mr. Summers tore apart Nancy Grace who as far as I know, I haven't watched her show for quite some time, is fully behind the abduction story. I don't believe Nancy Grace was the main target, you were Pat because you are one of the few publicly recognized people who openly expresses her views on the case. Because you appeared on her show several times, he had to devalue her in order to devalue you.
Unfortunately, there is worse to come.
The novelrank website estimates sales from amazon.com (US default?) at ....***drumroll***..... 1.
Is that your copy Pat?! You should get it signed by the author, would Kate oblige?
Guerra, I tend to agree with you on the strong possibility of the backer of the book being Kennedy. And yes, the attack on Nancy Grace was clearly for the purposes of setting me up as a "bird of a feather."
Anonymous, NovelRank sucks. It always way underestimates sales. Looking for Madeleine is not a bestseller but it is selling at a reasonable rate.
@ PAT, they havent debated anything before writing this media book, you are correct about research directive, and souce to where that information exists?
What is of interest is the change in their book, towards what was actualy said?
For example there was no sign hanging to warn them about any dangers?
But quoted as saying gerry thought there was a intruder in the apartment before he left the apartment unlocked?
Not well researched at all, they also left out the key that was alleged to be used, this was changed after amaral proved there was never any forced entry into that apartment, it went from smashed shutters, to a key being used, then doors being unlocked, so much for observasional skills in changes to information, their book is more contradictive than the mccanns statements, badly composed and unprofessional, at least you stick to the facts pat in a commen sense logic.
If earlier post is correct?
Again up comes the link with Brian Kennedy the multi millionaire backer of the alleged McCann's.
Interesting fact is Mr Kennedy seems to have at one time, worked for the Brown Brothers Com, Research indicates a link with, John Brown & Company dry goods (maybe coincidence here but KM stated in her book, her grand father had worked for dry nuts/fruit importers) Brown Brothers Co was a New York branch opened 1825,the New York office directed most of its trading with a UK Liverpool branch. On Jan 1st 1931,the company merged with Harriman Brothers & Co, overall business become known as Brown Brothers and Harriman Co,the investment company started with railway money.
One other was W A Harriman & Co, from then on it existed as Brown Bothers Harriman Founding Partners, oldest large private bank in US was formed in 1931, trading out of New York and Liverpool.
Way back, Harriman Brothers & Co founded in 1818,was (maybe still is) an advisory management, commercial, banking company,
provides global custody, foreign exchange, private equity.
Most interesting is founding partners on board this conglomerate(that Brian Kennedy was linked with) were, Politicians, including Prescott Sheldon Bush, just one amongst other high profile illuminate.
One other was W Averell Harriman of Union Banking Co, a clearing house for many asset/enterprises held by German Steel Magnate Fritz Thyssen, in July 1942 the bank was suspected of holding gold for the Nazi leaders, although allegations were disproved, but confirmed was the Thyssen's control, so in 1942 the US States seized the bank under trading with the enemy act and all assets were held during rest of WW2.
It has to be stated Bush was later cleared of being a Nazi sympathizer.
In 1930's Thyssen was tried for being supporter of Nazi leaders, He did not deny it and accepted his companies mistreatment of Jewish employees, he paid 500,000 Deutschmarks compensation.
Thyssen died in Argentina.
From there on it seems most Thyssen's married into aristocratic European families.
Are these links connected to McCann's?
We are told Brian Kennedy who worked for Brown Brothers Com, set aside 250 000000, It must be asked, would a guy with no known links to a family cough up this huge amount?
There was allegedly a steel magnate in the company of the McCannn's at Ocean Club?
KM told us her granddad worked for dry products.
Are we dealing with Illuminate cover-up?
It's funny Pat - due to the blanket partisan coverage in the UK press, on expressing an opinion on the mccann case that doesn't suit a certain mindset, the case suddenly offers new avenues for it to be solved.
Forget the apartment, the town, the lack of a body etc. and drill in top down rather than bottom up. I can't remember a case involving ANYTHING that has been given so much scotland yard attention, so much tax payers money, so many private donations, so much censorship of press, yet so much media coverage and so much investigative personnel giving time to it, whilst only looking at certain fenced off suspects options. With the amount of media coverage the mccanns have used, they still don't let a single member of their holiday party be interviewed. How did they manage this level of control?
You can ask a friend with influence to get the case of your missing child be pushed to the forefront of say SKY News intermittently, you can ask a friendor contact for some help in investigating. To get that amount of tax payer cash inflow, level of investigation and controlled media coverage only if you have dirt on someone higher up. Top down approach. Weed out the weeds and contaminated parties.
Why were the mccanns AND their friends not prosecuted for neglect. I have never seen that answered though many ask.
I believe very much in the dogs evidence. Why are certain cases prosecuted on dog evidence, and others not?
The truth will come with or without remains. No matter what, correctly applied pressure can break anyone. Better to break than to be prosecuted
Somebody who goes by the name of "Robbyn" can't be taken seriously in any respect.
On a more serious note: I just came across this blog. Good job!
Post a Comment