Seems the new edition of their most useful book contains this statement, which is causing carpet-chewing in hateworld:
What are they so scared of? After all, they're the ones that are forever screeching about Free Speech and je suis Charlie, etc - until someone dares criticise their beloved Amaral.
You have to wonder why Amoral supporters are so desperate to abuse and silence anyone that doesn't agree with their rather sick worldview.In September 2014, the day before Looking for Madeleine went on sale, a colleague let us know that members of anti- McCann Facebook groups were already labelling the book pro- McCann 'propoganda' and urging a 'fightback' . On Twitter two female anti- McCann zealots , one using the username @sweepyface- later to be identified as Brenda Leyland- the other using @portugalonline, an American maned Isabelle McFadden, discussed the notion of flooding Amazon with bad reviews. 'We need a concentrated effort on Amazon,' Leyland tweeted, 'it is really affective.'
Customer reviews on Amazon's website, which rate books by allocating stars, can have a powerful effect. Potential buyers are encouraged to say sheet a customer review of a book was helpful- or not. The more people mark a review as helpful, the more potentially that review is displayed. 'The effect of a bad review,' author Robert Groese has explained, goes far beyond the impact it gas on the author's ego.......the prominence of a book on Amazon.com is dictated by two factors: how well the book has sold and how positive the reviews are. More highly rated books are displayed more prominently, which leads to more sales.'
Brenda Leyland's and Isabelle McFadden's negative reviews, which both gave Looking for Madeleine just one star- the lowest rating- appeared rapidly on the book's Amazon sales page. Leyland also posted negative comments on some of the good reviews that had begun to appear. McFadden, who by her own admission did not have the book, based her 'review' on fifty pages she said had been emailed to her. 'I urge anyone in a position to do so,' Leyland tweeted, ' to comment on Amazon in response to the S&S ( Summers and Swann) book.......the star ratings are going down.'
What are they so scared of? After all, they're the ones that are forever screeching about Free Speech and je suis Charlie, etc - until someone dares criticise their beloved Amaral.
From Myths with thanks.
In their eagerness to prove Summers & Swan book a flop they seem to have ignored that flops don't run to a second edition.
In their eagerness to paint Brenda Leyland a misunderstood saint they object to her open trolling of the Amazon reviews section being pointed out, despite it being there for everyone to see.
In their eagerness to diss what informed, intelligent people have known since 2008 - that the forensic reports 'amount to a whole lot of nothing' - they are now roping in another two eminent scientists (one Irish) to their giant, ever-widening conspiracy.
Looking for Madeleine
Chapter 25.
The months that followed brought new headlines. Scotland Yard announced ' operational activity on the ground in Portugal', digging in and around Praia da Luz. Though the police did not say as much, this was evidently a search for possible human remains. Nothing of relevance was found. In a new development weeks later, a number of witnesses were questioned. To comply with national law, Portuguese detectives posed the questions with British officers sitting in as observers.
Though press reports had suggested otherwise, Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley emphasised that the new work 'should not be seen as a sign that the investigation is nearing a conclusion'. It was, he said, 'part of the routine slog'. Operation Grange chief Andy Redwood had earlier noted that his team had worked through more than 2000 'actions', or tasks- with moreover than that number still to be done.
Autumn 2014 brought headlines of a very different sort, news that coincided with publication of the first edition of this book. It shone harsh light on the machinations of some McCann 'haters', people who had for years used the web to pump out vicious bile. As reported in earlier chapters, the web has harboured not only the moderate observers and enthusiastic supporters of Kate and Gerry McCann , but also many out-and-out foes.
Such individuals have poured out their poison on platforms like Facebook and Twitter, the rise and rise of which have coincided with the years since Madeleine's disappearance. Constantly evolving, the explosion of social media has enabled users to connect with like-minded individuals instantaneously, often anonymously- and outpaced law enforcements ability to police it. It was a raw example of this phenomenon of our time, in the context of the Madeleine case, that attracted attention in late 2014.
To many of the online 'antis', it has seemed not to matter that Gerry and Kate McCann are the distressed parents of a missing child, a couple not known to have committed any wrongdoing. Their friends and acquaintances, including those who accompanied them on the ill-fated holiday in 2007, Gerry's sister Philomena- CEOP's former chief Jim Gamble- have also suffered abuse. Publication of this book made the author's targets too.
In September 2014, the day before Looking for Madeleine went on sale, a colleague let us know that members of anti- McCann Facebook groups were already labelling the book pro- McCann 'propoganda' and urging a 'fightback' . On Twitter two female anti- McCann zealots , one using the username @sweepyface- later to be identified as Brenda Leyland- the other using @portugalonline, an American maned Isabelle McFadden, discussed the notion of flooding Amazon with bad reviews. 'We need a concentrated effort on Amazon,' Leyland tweeted, 'it is really affective.'
Customer reviews on Amazon's website, which rate books by allocating stars, can have a powerful effect. Potential buyers are encouraged to say sheet a customer review of a book was helpful- or not. The more people mark a review as helpful, the more potentially that review is displayed. 'The effect of a bad review,' author Robert Groese has explained, goes far beyond the impact it gas on the author's ego.......the prominence of a book on Amazon.com is dictated by two factors: how well the book has sold and how positive the reviews are. More highly rated books are displayed more prominently, which leads to more sales.'
Brenda Leyland's and Isabelle McFadden's negative reviews, which both gave Looking for Madeleine just one star- the lowest rating- appeared rapidly on the book's Amazon sales page. Leyland also posted negative comments on some of the good reviews that had begun to appear. McFadden, who by her own admission did not have the book, based her 'review' on fifty pages she said had been emailed to her. 'I urge anyone in a position to do so,' Leyland tweeted, ' to comment on Amazon in response to the S&S ( Summers and Swann) book.......the star ratings are going down.
Within forty-eight hours, more than a dozen further one- star reviews would pop up on the page. One that appeared was purportedly posted by Jim Gamble - the real Gamble liked the book and had already tweeted positively about it. While such manipulation of the Amazon reviews may not be illegal , it clearly distorts the very purpose of reviewing. Our publisher accordingly raised the issue with Amazon. We for our part contacted the Soceity of Authors , which advised us to encourage- as far as is appropriate- the positive reviews.....' We suggested to several associates of our own that in the light of the Internet attacks- and when they had read the book- they might wish to post authentic reviews on Amazon.
Chapter 26 (This may have been transcribed from a Kindle, so there are some typos.)
By early 2015, as we prepared this new edition of Loking for Madeleine, what was once a constant stream of news reports had slowed to an occasional trickle. There were rumours that the British police investigation might soon end. People supposedly in the know were saying the case has dragged on too long- almost four years- and become too expensive. The cost of the probe, funded by the Home Office, was £10 million and rising. Working with the Portuguese authorities, always frustrating, supposedly remained nigh on impossible. Political backing, it was said, was ebbing.
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, who had headed Operation Grange since its inception, had recently retired and gad been replaced by an officer of similar rank named Nicola Wall . Some saw Redwood's departure as 'sending a message' that the case would soon be wound down. More speculation followed when, months later, a Metropolitan Police union spokesman talked of 'resentment' about the diversion of scarce personnel and funds to a case outside the UK.
The authors' conversations with sources over several months , however, suggest a different reality. A senior source told the authors it was 'business as usual. We're just working through the jobs, one by one.. Nicola Wall is an experienced veteran of homicide cases who gas brought a fresh eye to the case. We report to the Home Office every quarter- that's routine- but there's no money problem. And no sense that there's a political wind blowing against continuing the investigation, no hint that we might be closed down'
In one significant are, moreover, there has been a development. While the Mer has earlier said it was studying eighteen incidents in which an intruder had broken into properties housing British families between 2002 and 2010- well after Madeleine's disappearance- the figure had now risen. Police were now analysing as many as twenty-eight over a period starting as early as 2002. 'The offences are not all the same,' a source said. 'Some involve not children but teenagers or young women......but there are similarities. We're seeing a consistent theme.
'Perhaps there is a burglar, a thief, who's also got a weakness for this sort of thing. We don't know. We're not saying all these offences are definitely linked, but there's potential here. It's not the only line of enquiry we're following, not at all, but we're looking at it broad.y- a lengthy job. If we dig down into those incidents and find out who is responsible, if we find that a single person is responsible for a number, if not all, of the events..... Who knows, that same person may have been responsible for Madeleine McCann's disappearance.'
When it first emerged that police were focusing on intrusions into homes, Chief Inspector Redwood had referred wistfully to what his team really yearned for. If forensic evidence could be found that might identify the man or men behind the intrusions, that above all could lead to a breakthrough. Maybe, just maybe, a telltale fingerprint or DNA evidence was lying forgotten in an exhibit store in the Algarve.
Evidence. In eight years- across the whole case, not just in the matter of the intrusions- there has been no hard, usable evidence. That is perhaps the most bedevilling aspect of the Madeleine McCann mystery. From time to time it seemed there might be some. As reported in earlier chapters , the initial Portuguese police team found - aside from prints and hair strands of those known to gave legitimate access to the McCanns' rented apartment- a number of prints that were at the time judged to be of no evidential value, as well as hairs of unknown origin.
Weeks later, of course, sniffer dogs used in the apartment- and around the car Madeleine's parents had rented almost a month after their daughter's disappearance- had seemed to pick up the smell of human blood. One of them, trained to search for dead bodies, had reacted positively. This had lead to much excitement, lurid headlines and a nightmare of uniformed finger pointing at Gerry and Kate McCann that lingers to this day.
In this book, we have laid out in detail the reasons for dismissing the dog 'discoveries' as having been of no consequence. Today, we can hammer the point home by reporting the views of two leading forensic scientists. One is Dr Maureen Smyth, who was the Director of DNA with the Republic of Ireland's forensic science service until her retirement in 2014. The second, British, scientist we consulted is of similar prominence but asked for anonymity because he is engaged in another ongoing, high profile investigation. Between them, the two scientists have more than sixty years experience in their field.
Having perused the forensic files released by the Portuguese police, both experts agreed that this books reporting of the forensic aspects of the case is accurate, and made several additional points. The first deals with samples removed from the wall and floor near the sofa in Apartment 5A, at pints where the sniffer dos 'alerted'. Standard practice- the testing of such samples for blood at the scene, prior to DNA testing in the laboratory- was not followed in this case. It has therefore not been scientifically established that the samples sent to the laboratory were in fact blood.
The two scientists state, moreover, that - contrary to what some have suggested- the location of the samples taken from the wall and floor does not indicate that Madeleine, or anyone else, fell or was assaulted there. There is no typical 'smear pattern', no 'trail' of marks consistent with the scenario of someone being attacked, or bleeding as the result of a fall. Photographs of areas of the apartment's living-room wall that accompany the relevant reports, showing what appear to be smear marks, are consistent with what one might find in any average household. They do not support the notion that anyone cleaned the wall in an attempt to obliterate evidence.
The forensic reports, as released, Dr Smyth said in summary, 'amount to a whole lot of nothing'.
That said, leaks from the ongoing investigation might suggest the police are now making progress on the forensic front. One report said British detectives had asked their Portuguese counterparts not only for strands of hair that were found in Apartment 5A, but for curtains that once hung there. Further laboratory analysis might held fresh information. Has there been such progress? On this, it may be significant that, when repeatedly questioned, our Metropolitan Police sources proved tight-lipped.
A senior source remains optimistic. ' I am upbeat,' the source sai. 'With effort and time and teamwork, this case is solvable. There are simply many angles and many people whom we should interview. We must just work through them one by one, until hopefully- in the end- we identify one or more perpetrators guilty in Madeleine's disappearance.
'Every case is solvable, and there's no reason to think this one don't be solved.'
Last edited by Sykes on Tue May 12, 2015 6:37 pm; edited 2 times in total
