New Madeleine McCann book to be free to the public - Chelsea Hoffman

Marky wrote:well, it certainly would appear that this 'book' says exactly what you want to hear.

For years we have been waiting for the questions about DP to come out in relation to Gaspars - this is highly relevant, as Amaral also believed. imo this ties in with what many believe to be the reason for the political interference and coverup in this case.

cherry1 wrote:

Marky wrote:well, it certainly would appear that this 'book' says exactly what you want to hear.

For years we have been waiting for the questions about DP to come out in relation to Gaspars -  this is highly relevant, as Amaral also believed. imo this ties in with what many believe to be the reason for the political interference and coverup in this case.  

well, get it while you can. if it contains half what i think it does, the author's looking at at least one lawsuit.

I most certainly will Marky


Not much use in law suits if the public already read it

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:

Marky wrote:well, it certainly would appear that this 'book' says exactly what you want to hear.

For years we have been waiting for the questions about DP to come out in relation to Gaspars -  this is highly relevant, as Amaral also believed. imo this ties in with what many believe to be the reason for the political interference and coverup in this case.  

well, get it while you can. if it contains half what i think it does, the author's looking at at least one lawsuit.

If the book is available for free, the author won't be worth the McCanns' while trying to sue her.

Good point Anna x

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:

Marky wrote:well, it certainly would appear that this 'book' says exactly what you want to hear.

For years we have been waiting for the questions about DP to come out in relation to Gaspars -  this is highly relevant, as Amaral also believed. imo this ties in with what many believe to be the reason for the political interference and coverup in this case.  

well, get it while you can. if it contains half what i think it does, the author's looking at at least one lawsuit.

If the book is available for free, the author won't be worth the McCanns' while trying to sue her.

they won't be lookng at the author, just those who choose to repeat it.

ha ha I doubt it, they won't get much that way and they only interested in from what I've seen

Chelsea Hoffman shared her post. (copied over from facebook)

1 hr
..
A word about formatting errors in my KINDLE version.. Id appreciate it if you guys would read this.

Image may contain: text

1 hr


To those of you who have purchased the KINDLE version of my latest book on the Madeleine #McCann case:

For some reason, KDP (Kindle publishing) has started removing italics and words with dashes (-) from their formatting, which makes for some pretty irritating reading. Apparently this has affected my book (again, just the KINDLE version), and dashes/italics did not show up in the final product. That means words such as "three-years-old" showed up in the KINDLE version as "threeyearsold," which is absolutely infuriating to me.

This has attracted less-than-stellar (see what I did there) reviews, from readers who (for some silly reason) believe that I am stupid enough to smash three words together without dashes. I do apologize for the formatting errors in the KINDLE version, but they are beyond my control.

HOWEVER, the paperback version of the book has absolutely NO errors of this kind. (see photo) Again, I apologize for the formatting errors that were found in the KINDLE version, which are thanks to Amazon KDP's formatting for KINDLE. The only remedy I see for this is to revise the entire manuscript to have spaces, instead of dashes, (which still doesn't look good), so that these words aren't smashed together thanks to the removal of my dashes. This will take quite some time, but those of you who bought it on Amazon for KINDLE, won't be affected. It will refresh to the updated copy automatically without you having to repurchase, or feeling like you wasted money on something with formatting errors. smile emoticon

Thanks for this cherry, my kindle has occasional hiccups with spelling and punctuation that I've just put down to poor proof reading' but it's plainly a system error which they're unable to rectify.

You're welcome Malena x must be frustrating for her

cherry1 wrote:You're welcome Malena x must be frustrating for her

You're right cherry, the format problem Amazon are having must be both frustrating and embarrassing for her and other authors whose works appear amateurish and slipshod through no fault of their own. All would have had all punctuation and spelling proofed prior to submitting it for publishing. Chelsea's posting has at least cleared up a problem with kindle books I'd found.

Chelsea Hoffman is promoting her book again online at Blasting News TV (Aug. 13). She refers to missing Missouri, USA baby Lisa Irwin and mentions "Mother of baby Lisa compared to Madeleine McCann's mother..." She mentions that an entire chapter in her new book about Madeleine focuses on the similarities of the two cases. "Lisa's mother, like Kate McCann, has stuck to a story of abduction. Meanwhile, both cases has produced evidence which indicates the contrary." She goes on, "With all the similarities between the two mothers, the book does point out one difference. The mother of missing baby Lisa did take a polygraph test -- that she ultimately failed. Madeleine McCann's mother, however, has refused to take a polygraph over the course of nine years that Maddie has been missing."

The fact that Kate refused to take part in a lie detector test and answer 48 questions regarding her daughter's absence from the family unit speaks volumes.... Most parents if not all, would be asking the officers investigating their child's absence what they could do to help the investigation... Not hinder it.

Was she actually asked if she would take a lie detector test?

Does anyone know what is their legal standing in Portugal? They aren't accepted as evidence in the U K.

She did apparently refuse to take one, can't remember where it was reported, but as for the legal standing of lie detector test in Portugal it would need one of our Portuguese colleagues to come back with that info.

malena stool wrote:The fact that Kate refused to take part in a lie detector test and answer 48 questions regarding her daughter's absence from the family unit speaks volumes.... Most parents if not all, would be asking the officers investigating their child's absence what they could do to help the investigation... Not hinder it.

Most parents would fully co-operate with investigating authorities to the extent of parking themselves on the doorstep of the police station until their child was found, that is parents who had nothing to hide. Not only did the McCanns not co-operate and hindered the search, they actually sued Mr. Amaral claiming HE hindered the search by publishing details of his investigation. That illustrates their contemptuousness not only for Mr. Amaral but for their own daughter.

The McCanns and The Polygraph




In the Kate Prout murder case, the failure of Mr Prout to pass a Polygraph test led ultimately to his confession to the murder of his wife.

Back in September 2007 the McCanns, as part of their PR 'fight back' against the action of the Portuguese police in making them arguidos, made it known - albeit through the inevitable use of a proxy 'friend of the family'/'source' - that they would be willing to take a lie detector test to clear their names.

"They have said all along that they want to co-operate fully with the Portuguese police," the anonymous 'friend' stated, adding that they had "received no such request from the Portuguese authorities".

Once the frantic headlines, such as 'McCANNS: WE'LL TAKE LIE TEST', had been successfully embedded into the nation's newsstands, Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns spokesperson, stepped forward to pour cold water on the idea. Principally on the grounds that such evidence was not admissible in a Portuguese court.

And there the matter lay...

Until November, of the same year, when a "shocked" Don Cargill, chairman of the British And European Polygraph Association, spoke to the Sunday Express. He revealed that he had spoken to "the McCanns' people", with regard to taking a lie detector test, and they had come back "with a list of conditions that would have been impossible to satisfy".

Mr Cargill said: "Kate said she'd take it to prove her innocence but in reality, she wasn't willing. I was dumbfounded, to tell the truth."

The accompanying headlines, such as 'KATE REFUSES LIE TEST', were clearly unhelpful and so, as usual, Clarence Mitchell was afforded the final word on the subject:

"Gerry and Kate don't need to do one as they are telling the truth."

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id393.html

Many thanks to "cherry 1" for the above refresher. Well there we have it folks - the gospel according to Clarence Mitchell - "Gerry and Kate don't need to do one (polygraph) as they are telling the truth." You really can't make this stuff up.

Here is a link to the book.
http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/08/where-is-baby-lisa-irwin-new-book-mentions-high-profile-disappearance-001065179.html

Thanks for the info cherry.

As for Ambulance Chaser Mitchell's outpourings of gobbledygook and smoke and mirrors...

The flip side of his drivel is the lie detector could have given scientific indications that maybe they were telling the truth...

All innocent parents gladly submit to a polygraph and are gratified that the test indicates they are telling the truth, whether or not it can be used in court.

interested wrote:All innocent parents gladly submit to a polygraph and are gratified that the test indicates they are telling the truth, whether or not it can be used in court.

In the USA, although the results of a polygraph cannot be used in court, the police seem to use them regularly as a means of eliminating someone as a suspect or for deciding that there is need for further investigation if a suspect fails. Refusal to take the test is often seen as the person having something to hide. In the McCanns' situation, if a parent had absolutely nothing to hide, you'd think they would gladly take a polygraph test to get it out of the way and show that they really did have nothing to hide. Whether it could be used in court should be irrelevant.

AnnaEsse wrote:

interested wrote:All innocent parents gladly submit to a polygraph and are gratified that the test indicates they are telling the truth, whether or not it can be used in court.

In the USA, although the results of a polygraph cannot be used in court, the police seem to use them regularly as a means of eliminating someone as a suspect or for deciding that there is need for further investigation if a suspect fails. Refusal to take the test is often seen as the person having something to hide. In the McCanns' situation, if a parent had absolutely nothing to hide, you'd think they would gladly take a polygraph test to get it out of the way and show that they really did have nothing to hide. Whether it could be used in court should be irrelevant.

Exactly! So much for the "leave no stone unturned" lark. They are as guilty as sin, we know that and more and more people are waking up to that fact now, after 9 long years.