Sky news at 7pm

Seems Sky News will have an exclusive report at 7pm on the Madeleine McCann investigation.  Sky on my ipad sends these alerts, it just popped up.

Yes, coming on now!

Sorry I'm watching paint dry......

Its on shortly kitti.

I'm sure I heard the word 'interference' in the investigation?
(But don't quote me)

ETA Link

http://news.sky.com/story/1328374/madeleine-mccann-secret-home-office-report

And I bet a tenner who will be blaming who for that.



'oh those orrible pj, they just won't play ball and accept that WE ..SY...won't give up cos Kate and Gerry said if we do, I won't be able to retire next year and sail away on my million pound yacht....I will be signing on'

Well I missed Emmerdale and had to look at Jim Gambles mug instead.

Basically said there were so many UK organisations involved at the outset the PJ were "confused".  Seems to be a "secret" report written but I don't know by who.

None of the agencies listed in the secret report would comment on an "unpublished" report when contacted by Sky.

You made the right choice with the paint Kitti 

http://news.sky.com/story/1328374/madeleine-mccann-secret-report-on-police-probe

September is here isn't it??  Libel trial is here isn't it?  Let the side show begin!!!
Only thing missing is Coco the Clown!  Hang on, Izzie Duarte is still their lawyer, so scratch that last comment

There was a big plug for the Summers and Swan book too.
Wonder how often they're going to pop up in the next few days accidentally on purpose.
We could play S & S Bingo ...

The whole segment was a let down.
Gamble, with his 'I've got a report but you're not seeing it'  spiel.
Pathetic.

ETA - Summers & Swan ‏@summersandswan 11m
#mccann #jim gamble excellent Sky news coverage of secret UK review of case covered in "Looking for Madeleine"

YAWN .........

mossman wrote:Well I missed Emmerdale and had to look at Jim Gambles mug instead.

Basically said there were so many UK organisations involved at the outset the PJ were "confused".  Seems to be a "secret" report written but I don't know by who.

None of the agencies listed in the secret report would comment on an "unpublished" report when contacted by Sky.

You made the right choice with the paint Kitti 

Here you go, mossman
"Jim Gamble, the former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) who wrote the report, said the intervention of competing police chiefs has had a long-term negative effect on the investigation."

Say no more!!!

Ah yes...the new book that is coming out next week....

wjk wrote:

mossman wrote:Well I missed Emmerdale and had to look at Jim Gambles mug instead.

Basically said there were so many UK organisations involved at the outset the PJ were "confused".  Seems to be a "secret" report written but I don't know by who.

None of the agencies listed in the secret report would comment on an "unpublished" report when contacted by Sky.

You made the right choice with the paint Kitti 

Here you go, mossman
"Jim Gamble, the former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) who wrote the report, said the intervention of competing police chiefs has had a long-term negative effect on the investigation."

Say no more!!!

Thanks WJK. 

Crying out loud if the alert said report by Jim Gamble I wouldn't have bothered.

This was on jills site a week ago and what do you know...jimmy boy is on sky news




Very long winded but the two authors have said they read the pj files and have come to the conclusion. That Madeleine was abducted and the parents had nothing to do with her disappearance



Here we go...


The difficult task facing ANTHONY SUMMERS & ROBBYN SWAN as they publish 'Looking for Madeleine', billed as 'the most definitive account possible' of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
  Tony Bennett on Fri Aug 29, 2014 11:02 pm

I will append to this article on Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan some notes about what we may reasonably expect from their forthcoming book.

But first I will set out the evidence that these are widely-published, respected authors, almost revered for their research on some of the most famous celebrities and 'hot topics' of the last three decades: 9/11, the assassination of President Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, Frank Sinatra, the Charles Manson murders, and many more.

Possibly their best-known book to date is “The Eleventh Day; The Full Story of 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden”. Though well-received, it did not satisfy those many critics who believe there was a much deeper conspiracy behind the events leading to 9/11. That led some to suggest that Summers and Swan have been far too close to the political establishment and therefore unable to bring full objectivity to their books.

First, the Wikipedia entry about Anthony Summers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Summers


Then, below are two reviews of possibly their best-known book to date:  

A disclaimer for the record. I was interviewed by Robbyn Swan and have maintained a continuous dialogue with her since, including a meeting recently in Washington D.C. I was a reader for a final version of the Summers/Swan book prior to a late revision to account for the death of bin Laden.

The Eleventh Day, by “New York Times” best selling authors Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, is a game changer. Published by Ballantine Books, Random House Publishing Group, the book, according to the publishers, “is the first panoramic, authoritative account of 9/11.”

The Eleventh Day is the new definitive timeline for 9/11, a superb and detailed extension of the work of the 9/11 Commission and the Congressional Joint Inquiry. Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan’s work is peerless in the depth, breadth, and accuracy of their research and reporting. Together, this experienced team has cleared the air of suspect research and speculation, an invaluable service to future researchers and historians.

The game change comes on page 118. Citing investigative writer David Corn, the author’s conclude a detailed examination of conspiracy theories with this summary:

The legacy of the spurious doubts, though, has been that far too little attention has been given to the very real omissions and distortions in the official reporting. The conspiracy theorizing in which the skeptics indulged, David Corn has rightly said, “distracts people from the actual malfeasance, mistakes and misdeeds of the U.S. government and the intelligence community.” There were certainly mistakes, and there may have been wrong doing.

The Authors’ Road Map

“The Attack,” Part I. is a succinct retelling of a by now familiar story as first told by the Commission in Staff Statement 17 and then in its final report. Those familiar with the past work of, first, Summers and then Summers and Swan, as a team, will recognize a familiar pattern of detail after detail woven together in a compelling story that leaves no room for doubt as to the thoroughness of the underlying research.

The authors then pause their story for two chapters to undertake a necessary chore at the beginning of Part II, “Distrust and Deceit.” Their impeccable writing style is nowhere more evident than in the bridge to Part II. Concluding Part I, they wrote: “An American apocalyse, a catastrophe with consequences–in blood spilled and global political upheaval–that continues to this day.”

Part II begins: “One consequence, a national and international phenomenon, is that countless citizens do not believe the story of September 11 as we have just told it.” Here, Summers and Swan take direct aim at the conspiracy theorists. The necessary chore was to sweep the decks clean of the detritus from years of innuendo, speculation, and, in some cases, outright intellectual dishonesty. Again in their words, “9/11 is mired in “conspiracy theory” like no previous event in American history…”

In rapier-sharp strokes they skewer the conspiracy theories with authority, leaving no stones unturned. They borrowed a useful construct from David Rostcheck, a software consultant with a physics degree. Rostcheck described a bifurcated America, “America 1 and America 2,” the first shaped by “broadcast media,” the latter by the “Internet domain.” One gets the distinct impression from the authors that the two Americas are like ships passing in the night, each unaware of the other.

Citing their demonstrably thorough research after more than four years of work Summers and Swan conclude:

Wonder one may, but the authors have seen not a jot of evidence that anything like a false flag scenario was used on 9/11. Nor…have we encountered a shred of real information indicating that the Bush administration was complicit in 9/11. Subjected to any serious probing, the suspicions raised by Professor Griffin and his fellow “truthers” simply vanish on the wind.

That housecleaning, a high-powered vacuuming, set the stage for their own thesis, the game change described earlier. They spend the remainder of part II concluding the story of the day of 9/11 but with a specific predicate, a Team 8 (my team) memo to the front office questioning the accuracy of FAA and NORAD statements. They also draw extensively on the published work of the Team 8 leader, John Farmer, the author of Ground Truth.

The author’s conclude Part II with a direct quote from Farmer. ”‘”History,” Farmer wrote later in his book, “should record that, whether through unprecedented administrative incompetence or orchestrated mendacity, the American people were misled about the nation’s response to the 9/11 attacks.”"

In Part III, “America Responds,” the authors focus on “The Arabs,” faulting the Commission Report and Commission Staff supplemental documents for failure to speak to a found document, a ”Spiritual Manual.” ”The omission in extraordinary, unconscionable, for the telltale pages were important evidence.” The authors consider the “Manual” or “Handbook” the key piece of evidence, concluding that, “the “Spiritual Manual” must surely close off all doubt as to whether Atta and his comrades committed the hijacking.”

I cannot speak to the omission from the Commission Report. I do recall from my work on both staffs that the document was known and considered. It was not as central, then, as the author’s have it now. They use it as a springboard to discuss the equivocation of bin Laden, himself, about whether or not he was ultimately responsible.

“The truth,” beginning chapter 15, “that officialdom gave us, that young men loyal to al Qaeda and bin Laden were responsible…is not the full story. The 9/11 Commission varnished the story for public consumption…”

Here, the author’s strip away the facade of “skeptics’ ramblings.” They, again, cite David Corn, “Without conspiracy theories…there is much to wonder about September 11…” Summers and Swan then patiently build the case that there was a support network in the United States for the hijackers and, ultimately that network extended to Saudi Arabia, to include members of the royal family. ”The Saudi factor is one of the wild cards….The possibility of Saudi involvement, a vital issue, will be a major focus in the closing chapters of this book.”

First, though, the authors take us through the hunt for bin Laden and a resultant “sea change” when by March 2002 the focus turned from that hunt to “a war plan for Iraq.” And that led to a discussion of “The Plotters” in part IV.

The authors begin Part IV by recounting in precise detail a story told by others, the life of bin Laden and his father before him. In that recounting they established a relationship between bin Laden and Abdullah Azzam, a lecturer and prayer leader at King Abdul Aiz University in Jeddah. Azzam was a Palestinian who was “on his way to becoming the “Emir of Jihad.” According to the authors, bin Laden met with Azzam in Los Angeles in 1979 during a visit not firmly established until 2009.

The year 1979 was critical. It “marked the start of a new century in the Islamic calendar, a time said to herald change.” And change there was. Religious zealots seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca, a revolt that was crushed. A month later Soviet troops poured into Afghanistan which began a secret war to “push back communism.” According to the authors, the conflict was “orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of three nations: America, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.” And that was when “the nightmare started,” quoting a friend of bin Laden.

Thereafter in their narrative, the authors establish a relationship between bin Laden and the GID (Saudi intelligence service), and a trilateral relationship among the CIA, the GID, and the ISI (Pakistani Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence), intertwined with the activities of the jihadist, Abdullah Azzam, bin Laden’s mentor.

Azzam, assassinated along with his sons in a murder with no known assailant or motive, had already passed the “vanguard” of leadership to bin Laden. According to the authors, “Azzam had said jihad needed a “vanguard” that would give a dreamed-of future Islamic society a “strong foundation.”" That foundation was “al-qaeda al-sulbah” and its military base “al-qa’ida al’askariyya.” Al-qaeda was neither a foundation or a base. The authors credit bin Laden as telling a journalist that “al Qaeda was an organization to record the names of the mujahideen and all their contact details: a database.”

After a detailing of the future cast of 9/11 characters–bin Laden, Mohammed Atef, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et. al.–the authors move to the principle grievance, one “at least as large as Palestine,” the Saudi response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Oil was the issue and it brought the United States to the defense of Saudi Arabia and the introduction of “a foreign and overwhelmingly Christian army” to the “sacred land of the prophet.” It was a “cultural thunderbolt” for bin Laden.

In the end it was not the United States that left Saudi Arabia, it was bin Laden. His departure for Sudan left him “free to pursue jihad. That, in the context of fighting for Islam, would be very much in line with Saudi foreign policy.” The authors pose the question of “just who did launch bin Laden on his career as international terroist?” Citing the Commission Report the answer is “he had gotten out of Saudi Arabia “with the help from a dissident member of the royal family.”"

And that began the Sudan exodus, a “place and a time for training—and hatching plots.” Among the budding jihadists, according to the authors was an individual who said he was an “emissary from bin Laden,” Ramzi Yousef, who led the first attempt to bring down the World Trade Center in 1993. Yousef was also responsible for a plot against the Pope and a plot against American airlines, bojinka.

The authors linked Yousef to his uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who credits the Manila-based plot to down airliners as giving him the “idea of using planes as missiles.” Mohammed is then linked with Ramsi Binalshibh and the authors relate a meeting between the two and an Arab television journalist, Yosri Fouda. The important point made is that story told to Fouda “largely matches the version subsequent extracted from Mohammed by the CIA under interrogation. The authors consider Fouda’s interview as “breakthrough” and take the Commission to task for “unaccountably” failing to interview him. Important to the interview was the presence of a mystery man, Sheikh Abu Abdullah, a name used to refer to Osama bin Laden.

Concerning the plot and the plotters, the authors conclude that had al Qaeda been a company KSM would have been the CEO and bin Laden the Chairman. But the plotters were not the perpetrators, a different story which the authors tell in Part V.

In Part V, “Perpetrators,” the authors build the case that bin Laden was, in the words of Michael Scheuer, the chief of the uniquely chartered “Alec Station,” “a truly, dangerous, dangerous, man.” After the Embassy bombing in Africa the bin Laden threat was raised to the highest level, “Tier Zero.” And it was soon thereafter that CIA Director George Tenet said “we are at war.”

Thereafter, the authors lead us through the development of the planes operation and the recruitment and formation of the individuals who would carry it out, the perpetrators.

While it is a familiar story, Summers and Swan uniquely tell it with the advantage of four years of research across multiple countries and languages, leaving few, if any leads not followed. They interviewed two of the most knowledgeable investigators, Eleanor Hill, the staff Director of the Joint Inquiry and her primary investigator for the San Diego story, Michael Jacobson, who was also a member of the Commission staff. They portray, as have others before them, a dysfunctional national level effort, one that transcended administrations. Nevertheless, the attack did occur on President Bush’s watch and the new administration proceeded by fits and starts (and stops) as spelled out in detail by the authors.

The authors summed things up nicely near the end of Chapter 27. Quoting Michael Hirsh and Michael Isikoff of Newsweek: “The question is…not so much what the President knew and when he knew it. The question is whether the administration was really paying attention.”

As the tempo of hijacker activity picked up in late August and early September, the administration was just then getting started with a “long-delayed, very first meeting [of Principals] to discuss the bin Laden problem.” Under consideration was a draft National Security Presidential Directive agreed upon well before by the Deputies. There was considerable discussion about use of the Predator, who had the mission and, more importantly, who was going to pay for it. There was no substantive resolution. In the end, the Directive was approved, “it would be ready for the president’s signature—soon.”

In a short Part VI, “Twenty-Four Hours,” the authors take us through the final hours before the attack, detailing a series of facts that, retrospectively in the aggregate, are far more ominous than they were in real time.

Among the events were: the Moussaoui probe running “into the ground;” a last ditch attempt by Senator Feinstein to get the Vice President’s attention; the assassination of Ahmed Shad Massoud, which triggered a personal call to President Bush from President Putin; the leisurely search for Hazmi and Mihdhar; and, most seriously, late intercept of two critical messages by NSA that went untranslated.” The gist was, “Tomorrow is zero hour,” and “The match begins tomorrow.”

The authors tied things together in a concluding Part VII, “Unanswered Questions.” Recall that they earlier said that, “The Saudi factor is one of the wild cards….The possibility of Saudi involvement, a vital issue, will be a major focus in the closing chapters of this book.” They did weave that theme in their subsequent narrative and returned to it in Part VII.

First, however, their summation of earlier chapters is worth a verbatim quote.

The story of September 11, 2001 — that of the victims and of the terrorists — is told. The identify of the perpetrators is not in doubt. As told in these pages, the essential elements are as described in the conclusions of the two official inquiries.

The authors define two areas in which the 9/11 Commission “fudged or dodged” the issue: “the full truth about U.S. and Western intelligence before the attacks; and whether the terrorist operation…had the support of other nation-states or of powerful individuals within those nation-states.” Here, “Western intelligence” refers primarily to Germany.

And it is on those points that the authors establish themselves as the pre-eminent 9/11 investigators. Agree with them, or not, they are meticulous in their sourcing, fearless in their analysis, and precise in their prose.

I remain personally skeptical of the story that “U. S. intelligence officials had had a face-to-face meeting with Osama bin Laden [in Dubai] in early July 2001.” First, there is no accounting for the movement of a bin Laden entourage to and from Dubai other than that he “traveled secretly from Pakistan to Dubai…” Second, to my knowledge, the staffs of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Joint Inquiry staff knew nothing about this event, even though the Inquiry had a team devoted to CIA with office space at CIA Headquarters.

Dubai aside, the authors speak briefly to Iran and Iraq as potential nation-state sponsors and then focus on their real candidate, Saudi Arabia. Summers and Swan conclude Chapter 32 with this statement as a partial summation of their investigation: “In 2001, sympathy for al Qaeda and bin Laden was widespread across the spectrum of Saudi society. It extended, even, to approval of the strikes on America.” That is an unequivocal statement with no caveats.

The authors continued the Saudi thesis as they discuss the aftermath of the attacks. There was a “struggle” by both the Saudis and the Bush administration to “keep the fabled U.S.-Saudi “friendship” from falling apart.” Oil flowed, to the tune of nine million barrels over two weeks. The President met with Prince Bandar. Saudi nationals hastened to depart the county midstream of the FBI’s investigative work. The Bush administration sought “rapprochement” not confrontation. And, in 2002, Crown Prince Abdullah was the President’s guest in Texas.

There were five key Saudi individuals: Fahad al-Thumairy, an accredited diplomat; the San Diego resident Omar al-Bayoumi; on the money front, Osama Basnan; a Saudi religious official, Saleh al-Hussayen; and the American-born imam, Anwar Aulaqi.

The authors conclude: “Taken together the roles and activities [of the five]…heightened suspicion that the perpetrators of 9/11 had support and sponsorship from backers never clearly identified.”

Summers and Swan consulted extensively with Senator Bob Graham, a co-chair of the Joint Inquiry. In Graham’s opinion, “9/11 could not have occurred but for the existence of an infrastructure of support within the United States. By ‘the Saudis,’ I mean the Saudi government….[and that] included the royal family.”

Central to the author’s thesis, apart from input from Senator Graham, is the 28-page redaction in the Joint Inquiry report. I read the pages in the final draft report and my vague recall is that they had to do, in part, with the San Diego events. I’m with Eleanor Hill on this one. ”Know what,” she told the authors, “I can’t tell you [this far removed] what’s in those pages.”

Summers and Swan report a bipartisan finding. Both co-chairs of the Joint Inquiry, Senators Graham and Shelby, considered the pages withheld for reasons other than national security. Graham was explicit, according to the authors. ”In Graham’s view, Bush’s role in suppressing important information…should have led to his impeachment and removal from office.” The pages remain unreleased to this day, despite a President Obama expression of willingness to Kristin Breitweiser to “get the suppressed material released.”

Bluntly, Summers and Swan concluded that “The 9/11 Commission Report blurred the truth about the Saudi role…[but also reported that Iraq] had nothing to do with 9/11.” And because of Iraq, “the real evidence that linked other nations to Osama bin Laden and 9/11 faded from the public consciousness.”

After covering “Saudi Arabia’s murky role,” Summers and Swan turn their final attention to a nation “deserv[ing] equally close scrutiny,” Pakistan. Not long into that narrative they tied everything together in the words of former U.S. special envoy Peter Tomsen. According to the authors, “Tomsen told the 9/11 Commission that the Taliban “actually were the junior partners in an unholy alliance” —ISI, al Qaeda, and the Taliban. As it grew in influence the ISI liaised closely with Saudi intelligence…”

Things in perspective

The authors, consistent with the state of other current research and writing about 9/11, do not place the event in the context of what else was happening in the world. Terrorism, to include al Qaeda, was just one of multiple issues on the nation’s and the President’s plate. They do provide a metric that allows some insight into the larger context. On page 309, they wrote: “Every day, too, the President received a CIA briefing knows as the PDB—the President’s Daily Brief. Between the inauguration and September 10, bin Laden was mentioned in forty PDBs.”

There were, therefore, some 234 PDBs. In perspective, bin Laden was mentioned in one of every six or so PDB, approximately once a week. Further, each PDB contained multiple articles. Assuming a low figure of six articles per PDB, there were about 1400 articles, about three in one hundred mentioned bin Laden. That small percentage is consistent with an analysis of the SEIB (Senior Executive Intelligence Brief) I did while a member of the Joint Inquiry. The SEIB is a PDB-like document for a slightly larger audience, but one without law enforcement information. I found that terrorism articles, whether or not they mentioned bin Laden, were a small percentage of the total SEIB articles.

So what was going on? There were the continuing international situations, generally briefed daily, including the Middle East, Iran and Iraq separately, Central Europe and so forth. There was the matter of a resurgent Russia that, according to the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff intelligence briefings for the same period (which I also reviewed), was flexing a military muscle not seen for ten years or not seen since the fall of the former Soviet Union. That flexing was a front burner issue on 9-11, the Russians had scheduled an air-launched cruise missile live-fire launch for the day and for which a NOTAM had been issued. However, above all other issues the one that garnered the plurality of SEIB articles (and, by extension, PDB articles) was an emerging China. Of specific importance, on April 1, 2001, the Chinese forced down an U.S. reconnaissance aircraft, a serious international event.

International events aside, there was also the domestic issue of transition. While the authors wrote about bits and pieces of the transition from Clinton to Bush, they did not address the larger issue of transition time, in general. Each inauguration year, spring and well beyond, brings with it a struggle between a new administration to get its team in place and the Senate to confirm the key members of that team. 2001 was no different, with an additional constraint. Because of the contested election the whole nomination and confirmation process was delayed. There is no evidence that bin Laden’s insistence that the date of the attack be moved up had to do with the transition, but it would have been helpful if the authors had addressed the subject in a larger context.

In military terms, bin Laden was operating within the decision cycle of his enemy, a fundamental advantage, one that virtually assures success. When Mihdhar reentered the United States on Independence Day, July 4, 2001, the perpetrators swung into action. Six days later the administration met to discuss things. My recall is that one outcome was a request to put things in perspective for the President. The answer to that request became the August 6 PDB, in my recollection. Thereafter, the administration’s leisurely pace stands in stark contrast to the accelerated pace of the preparation for the attack. It is that contrast and comparison, discussed implicitly in The Eleventh Day, that warrants separate treatment.

Depth of research

In my estimation, no one knows more about the day of 9/11 than Robbyn Swan and no one knows more about the body of information, pre-event, event, and post-event necessary to competently discuss 9/11 than Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan.

Here are just a few examples of the thoroughness of their meticulous work.

Obtained, prior to publication, a copy of Kevin Fenton’s contemporary book, Disconnecting the Dots

Filed multiple FOIA actions, to include a critical request for a mandatory declassification review. That action surfaced a Commission staff iteration of the Air Threat Conference transcript

Developed a close and continuing relationship with NARA staff to facilitate exploitation of Commission files

Sought out Erik Larson, the single public person most knowledgeable about the contents of the 9/11 Commission files as uploaded to the History Commons Scribd account, and obtained a searchable DVD that greatly facilitated exploitation of the Commission files

Sought and obtained responsive foreign language documents and interviewed comprable sources, if at all possible

Called on a vast number of sources cultivated over the decades of previous work

In March 2010, printed out every document in the archives of my website and added to that compilation over time

Chaos considered

As is the universal case, the authors use the word chaos, or quote others who do, without definition. Chaos is a word whose meaning is simply understood without explanation. My purpose here is to document for future reference their mention of the word.

On page 50, in the context of a discussion of the fate of UA 93, the authors wrote: “FAR BELOW, ALL WAS CHAOS [capitalized by the authors]. At the very moment that the attendant in 93′s cockpit had fallen ominously silent…Flight 77 had slammed into the Pentagon. On his first day of duty in the post, FAA national operations manager, Ben Sliney and his senior colleagues had no way of knowing what new calamity might be imminent.”

On page 125 they cite a Commission analyst. ”The challenge in relating the history of one of the most chaotic days in our history…is to avoid replicating that chaos in writing about it.”

On page 128, in the context of the false report of AA 11 still airborne, the authors wrote, “The information was a red herring. In the chaos of the moment, however, no one knew for certain that is was Flight 11…”

On page 268 they cite the writer Peggy Noonan. ”If someone does the terrible big thing to New York or Washington, there will be a lot of chaos….The psychic blow—and that is what it will be to the people who absorb it, a blow, an insult that reorders and changes—will shift our perspective and priorities, dramatically, and for longer than a while….”

+++++++++++++++

Here's the second book review; I found this on the 911myths site:

The Eleventh Day

From 911myths

Jump to: navigation, search

by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan

"Scratch the surface of a middle-aged 9/11 Truther", wrote Jonathan Kay in his recent "Among the Truthers", "and you are almost guaranteed to find a JFK conspiracist". And at first glance it's easy to see his point. In my experience most truthers believe there was far more to the assassination than a lone gunman, and veteran JFK researcher Jim Fetzer gained considerable publicity for the cause when he questioned 9/11 on TV back in 2006.

When I first heard that author and fellow JFK researcher Anthony Summers had written a book on 9/11, then, I suspected it would follow the usual recipe. Take some ideas from Nafeez Ahmed, add a sprinkling of Griffin, stir in a few convenient entries from The Terror Timeline, garnish with impressive footnotes, and you're done: another identikit truther-friendly book.

But how very, very, very wrong I was.

First, The Eleventh Day is not just a list of the usual truther talking points. It focuses far more on a detailed sequence of events taken from original source documents, and interviews, many of them new. Controlled demolition, "no plane at the Pentagon" and similar issues are hived off to a couple of chapters, a mere 28 pages out of 600.

And second, while this plainly limits what the authors can cover, they nonetheless leave no doubt regarding their views. Words like "preposterous", "fatuous" and "callous" appear in response to particular truther claims, before they tell us that 'subject to any serious probing, the suspicions raised by Professor Griffin and his fellow "truthers" simply vanish on the wind'.

This isn't an empty opinion, either. The authors interviewed and contacted many people throughout the project (including Daniel Hopsicker, History Commons' Erik Larson and Kevin Fenton, and John Judge), and say they have "read as much" [of the Commission documentation released by NARA] "as is feasible", only to report that it "provides no support for the naysayers".

The Eleventh Day doesn't give the 9/11 Commission a free pass, though. Rather, the authors say:

The legacy of the spurious doubts... has been that far too little attention has been given to the very real omissions and distortions in the official story. The conspiracy theorizing in which the skeptics indulged, David Corn has rightly said, "distracts people from the actual malfeasance, mistakes and misdeeds of the U.S. government and the intelligence community."

There were certainly mistakes, and there may have been wrongdoing.

What were those mistakes, and where was the wrongdoing? That's discussed in-depth in the latter part of the book.

Unanswered Questions

Summers and Swan believe there are two areas where the "9/11 Commission fudged or dodged the issue: the full truth about U.S. and Western intelligence before the attacks; and whether the terrorist operation ten years ago had the support of other nation-states or of powerful individuals within those nation-states".

As they discuss these issues so some familiar stories appear, with perhaps a different twist. Did US officials really meet with bin Laden in a Dubai hospital in July 2001? Probably so, they say, though also quoting a former head of the Security Intelligence department of France's DGSE as saying "we did not consider it as something abnormal or outrageous. When someone is threatening you, you try to negotiate. Our own service does it all the time. It is the sort of thing we are prepared to do."

There are also thoughts on what the intelligence services may or may not have known about the hijackers, pre-9/11, and why exactly it was that the CIA didn't share information on Mihdhar and Hazmi with the FBI, a move which may have stopped the attacks (the authors wonder if they were monitoring the pair, perhaps hoping to recruit them as informants.)

Attention is also paid to the possible Saudi role in the attacks (and the 28 pages from the Joint Inquiry Report which appear to be on this issue), and there's also some discussion of the bin Laden/ ISI connection (which is right up-to-date with a page or two on bin Laden's death).

I'm summarising considerably here; this is a lengthy and detailed book and I don't have the time to do it justice. For more information, try Miles Kara's review, the Vanity Fair adaption or Leonard Lopate interview.

Or, if you simply want to know whether you should buy it, my answer is yes, with a single reservation.

If you're simply looking for a resource which will provide new material to address truther claims, then this probably isn't the book for you. As I mentioned earlier, "9/11 truth" makes only a brief appearance in The Eleventh Day. The authors clearly decided there were more important topics to fill their pages than endless discussions about whether the hijackers really were on the manifests, and similar issues: and they were right.

If you're looking for something more detailed, though, a well-documented account of the run-up to the attacks, the perpetrators, the day itself, and what came later, as well as a lengthy piece on "unanswered questions", then you'll find this a very interesting read. It deserves its place alongside 9/11 books by Peter Lance, Lawrence Wright, John Farmer and so on, and has more than enough new material to justify its inclusion in your library.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Here is a link to the (long) Vanity Fair article about their book, written in fact by Summers & Swan themsleves: 

Adapted from The Eleventh Day by Anthony Summers and Robynn Swan to be published this month by Ballantine Books; © 2011 by the authors.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/08/9-11-2011-201108?currentPage=1


Now here's the publisher's blurb about 'Looking for Madeleine': 

The 2007 disappearance of a three-year-old Madeleine McCann from her bed in Portugal proved an instant, worldwide sensation. There's been nothing like it since America's Lindbergh kidnapping eighty years ago.

Award-winning authors Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan have produced the first independent, objective account of the case. They have examined the released Portuguese files, conducted in-depth interviews and original research to answer the questions: What can we really know about this most emotive of cases? What can we learn from it?

The Portuguese police probe ran into a dead end. Parents Gerry and Kate McCann, however, have never given up the search for Madeleine. They blitzed the media, hired private detectives, kept the case in the public eye. Speculation that the McCanns played a role in their daughter's fate, the authors demonstrate, is unfounded.

Scotland Yard's 'investigative review', ordered by the Prime Minister and begun in 2011, identified some 200 potential leads. The Yard's suspects have included a mystery paedophile who preyed on other British children. The Detective Chief Inspector heading the probe has said the little girl may still be alive.

The McCann family's private tragedy has touched millions around the world and aroused sometimes dark controversy. Looking for Madeleine is the most definitive account possible.

++++++++++++

And finally my notes about what we have a right to expect from 'Looking for Madeleine': 

Looking at the publisher’s description of the book, these SIX claims for it stand out: 

·         1. it’s the first independent, objective account of the case

·         2. they have examined the released Portuguese files,

·         3. they have conducted in-depth interviews

·         4. they have conducted original research

·         5. they demonstrate that speculation that the McCanns played a role in their daughter's fate is unfounded, and

·         6. their book is ‘the most definitive account possible’.

If numbers (1) and (6) are to be proved true, it follows that they must have considered, and decisively rejected, the basis on which there has indeed been speculation that the McCanns played a role in Madeleine’s disappearance. That means, I suggest, that to live up to its billing and the authors’ reputation, Summers & Swan will have to answer:

a)   the alleged changes of story by the McCanns and their friends

b)   the obvious contradictions - I refer to just one set of them: the 20 or so contradictions in the alleged visit of Dr David Payne to Apartment G5A

c)   the report of Martin Grime

d)   the contents of Dr Amaral’s book ‘The Truth About A Lie’

e)   the report of Inspector Tavares de Almeida, and

f)    much else.

Looking at number (3) above, what ‘in-depth’ interviews must they have conducted?

I would suggest that, as a minimum, they would have had to conduct challenging interviews with all of the following:

·         The McCanns
·         The Tapas 7
·         Key Portuguese witnesses: nannies, Ocean club staff etc.
·         Cheshire businessman Brian Kennedy and all those staff he employed on the search for Madeleine:
(i)                  Gary Hagland, money-laundering expert
(ii)                 Francisco Marco
(iii)                Antonio Gimenez Raso
(iv)               Julian Peribanez
(v)                Marcos Aragao Correia (Arade Dam and prosecution of Goncalo Amaral)
(vi)               Kevin Halligen
(vii)              Henri Exton
(viii)            Tim Craig-Harvey
(ix)               Dave Edgar
(x)                Arthur Cowley.

It will be interesting to see how many of these names feature in the book.    

Also, if number (6) is to be fulfilled, the authors will presumably have had a briefing from Scotland Yard – unless they tell their readers: “This is a highly confidential enquiry, so we are unable to tell you anything about what they have and have not established.

A much more detailed breakdown of the accounts of 'Madeleine's Fund' would not come amiss, either. 

As set out above, I concede that by their previous published works, Summers & Swan have an established reputation to live up to.

But unless they cover all angles to justify their conclusion that the McCanns played no role in Madeleine’s disappearance, their hubristic claim to have written ‘the most definitive account possible’ stands in grave danger of being trumped by someone else who may well pen a more definitive account than theirs.

And if that should happen - or, still worse, if their strong conviction that 'the McCanns played no role in Madeleine’s disappearance' was ever proved to be unjustified - people might well start to query the conclusions of some of their other books.

Jim gamble and summers and swann mentioned in the same sentence, makes you wonder who commissioned this book....

I think more damage was done to the investigation in 2007 by the Mccanns refusal to cooperate, lbet that isn't in his report.

I understand it to be a secret Home Office Report - well that is what Sky have said.

LJC wrote:I understand it to be a secret Home Office Report - well that is what Sky have said.

According to the Express it was commissioned by the Home Office but written by Gamble
The unpublished report by Jim Gamble, former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), found that so many UK agencies got involved it damaged relations with Portuguese police.
The report, commissioned by former Home Secretary Alan Johnson in 2009, was delivered in 2010 and led to the Metropolitan Police reopening the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, but was never released.

margaret wrote:Jim gamble and summers and swann mentioned in the same sentence, makes you wonder who commissioned this book....

I think more damage was done to the investigation in 2007 by the Mccanns refusal to cooperate, lbet that isn't in his report.

Yeh I'll bet it isn't!  Also I'll bet Gamble won't report about the failure of the Home Office to comply with basic background information on the lying duo when the investigation was in its infancy! A blatant and corrupt attempt to scupper the original investigation (imo), and they're still attempting to throw the scent off the two lying culprits, Kate and Gerry McCann.

Quelle surprise a book promoting the abduction facade is now being plugged to the hilt just as GA's trial concludes!  

I bet the report won't tell us anything about CEOP's profiling of Robert Murat, which declared him The Man Most Likely To ...
One man's life ruined forever ...

Or what happened to all those holiday snaps which CEOP asked to be sent to THEM (why not send them directly to the police?)

Or how Gerry McCann mysteriously acquired those in-house CEOP manuals.

Yea.....criticising the pj and Leicester police who were out off their depth.



The same two forces who came to the conclusion, right one, that Madeleine had died in apt 5a and the parents covered up her death.


Funny that init

yes it is kitti.  I hadn't realised that Jim Gamble was such an authority on police force investigations, was he the person who gave the McCs the CEOP manuals, has he ever said that he did.  has either of the McCs said how they came to have the manual.

wonder if the McCs will sue both police forces using Jim Gamble as testimony.

Re: the book I don't believe the authors read the police files, or the summing up by the PJ or the comment of the Leicester Police Chief when the McCs applied to the court for the info. strange that neither of these appear to have been mentioned.

report finds competing British forces hampered the investigation into Madeleine McCanns 'disappearance'
------------------------------------------------

"Phew that was lucky, Tiny Tears, that report saying British Police forces hampered the investigation into Madeleine's 'disappearance'"

"Aye, Hotlips, it dosen't appear we're going to get anything out of that 'sardine muncher' for hampering the investigation into Maddie's, er, Madeline's 'disappearance', so we'll sue, for say, £5 million in damages for ourselves, the twins and er, um Margaret, from the British Police forces, and there's more than one, who hampered the investigation into Maggie's 'disappearance' like 'sardine boy'. We'll call Big Jimmy as our star witness"

"okay, i'll give Farter Cluck, a bell, after our full English, tomorrow"

"night, night, Tiny Tears"

"night, night, Hotlips"

Now that Sky News have been bold enough to publicly state the obvious, Andy Redwood and his team of merry men, should be disbanded, before anymore of taxpayers money is wasted on their mission to find a 'patsy'.

While in my opinion it's looking unlikely that the McCanns will ever be brought to justice, for the heinous crime they committed against Madeleine, due to the secret they are holding (my opinion) that must never be brought to the public eye, it isn't too late for the Madeleine fund to be investigated.

As soon as Kate McCann's uncle, Brian Kennedy, revealed that any donations received would be used for all sorts of reasons, but mainly the McCanns legal expenses, it was plainly obvious that hardly any of this money would be spent on looking for Madeleine. The way I look at it, none of this money has been spent looking for Madeleine. The McCanns their family, Clarence Mitchell and the McCanns dodgy detectives, have all taken their cut of this money and none of them have put one foot in front of the other, to look for Madeleine.

If the fraudulent fund is never investigated, I can only presume that the reason for not investigating it, is the same reason the McCanns have never been brought to justice for the heinous crime they committed against Madeleine.

There are some cracking comments on Skys FB page.  99.9% all anti!!

kathybelle wrote:Now that Sky News have been bold enough to publicly state the obvious, Andy Redwood and his team of merry men, should be disbanded, before anymore of taxpayers money is wasted on their mission to find a 'patsy'.

Perhaps that is what last night was about.  The beginning of the end.

Was it an attempt to answer a question asked for years -  why did they get help from so many agencies in UK?  Gamble told us last night it's because they all wanted to help.  So eager to help, they fell over each other and were partly responsible for mucking up the investigation.  Just nice guys, the whole lot of them, it would seem.

So whats the next big question -   The dogs.  If they attempt to explain the dogs anytime soon, then Redwood is packing his bags, with a not enough evidence to prosecute outcome, I bet.

One by one, tick off the big questions surrounding the investigation, it will not satisfy all of the doubters but on paper it is a box ticked.

I agree with all of your post, other than Sky being bold in their transmission last night.  Whatever the reasons, it was pre-planned, written to script and had agreement of all parties before going to air.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/01/british-police-competition-harmed-madeleine-mccann-investigation-home-office-report?CMP=twt_gu

Some interesting sentences, among them :"In the first instance, the parents should be your number one suspects," he told Sky"



What is he trying to do? Have a better position in case of lost election for Cameron, or in case the revue is a total fiasco, or if it's proved the McCanns are involved?