Re: Sonia Poulton's documentary

Mimi Sat 27 Dec 2014, 10:55 am

.......... her clues and pronouncements may also get other investigative journalists to try and get there before her ..... and be as daring as her.

Guest Sat 27 Dec 2014, 11:01 am

She mentions a prominent pro tweeter who we will be surprised to learn who it is,get their name out there now why wait?

Dee Coy Sat 27 Dec 2014, 11:08 am

caricature wrote:She mentions a prominent pro tweeter who we will be surprised to learn who it is,get their name out there now why wait?

Because if she does it now it won't be picked-up on and cause the scandal it should? The only ones who will sing about it is the usual suspects - us, Twitter and facebook.

But if she waits until other stories are breaking which make the case and people's allegiances impossible to ignore, then that person could be given the exposure that is warranted, but currently the MMS can easily ignore. In a way that in 3 months time they potentially can't.

Guest Sat 27 Dec 2014, 11:13 am

@ Dee Coy thats only if the MSM are interested in the inquest and Amaral,the last day of the trial in Portugal where the lawyer couldn't be arsed to turn up hardly got a mention did it.

Poe Sat 27 Dec 2014, 11:27 am

I agree with you Dee Coy, I think she is making a shrewd gamble.

If (when hopefully) the case breaks, the media will need an "expert" to give interviews and provide soundbites. So who do we have? Clarrie will be too busy covering his own backside as will Jim Gamble while Summers and Swann are still trying to wash the egg off their faces.

There is Sonia Poulton, a fellow journalist - one of their own - with knowledge of the case, able to speak eloquently on tv, with sufficient knowledge to be able to answer questions from the media and with a video of her own that will be available to broadcast.

Marky Sat 27 Dec 2014, 11:32 am

of course did i forget to mention this could be a carrot being held in front of her. you know, you're the canary and if it all comes off you're in the the big time. however, if it don't, you're on your own. wouldn't be the first time the media played this game, would it.

don't you just hate them. Very Happy

Guest Sat 27 Dec 2014, 11:37 am

I tend to think we already know who the pro-McCann tweeeter is in the outside world. I think SP will have followed up on the evidence from Twitter and made sure that it was genuine. I personally think her video will be a big hit on the internet but won't get anywhere near the MSM.

Dee Coy Sat 27 Dec 2014, 11:48 am

caricature wrote:@ Dee Coy thats only if the MSM are interested in the inquest and Amaral,the last day of the trial in Portugal where the lawyer couldn't be arsed to turn up hardly got a mention did it.

You're right, of course, the track record is abysmal, as we know. But more things are happening now in a way never cumulated before. The force appears to have left their lawyers, the desperate dossier and it's tragic backfire, DCI Wall's appointment. The fact that the police appear unable to identify a patsy which they can make stick. SY are now openly looking at death in the apartment and the DNA is being retested. Summers and Swan were referred to the PJFiles by SY for the answers to their research. The disaster which was their book. Murat has been questionned. Other OC staff have been requestionned.

Maybe, just maybe, we will get the right verdicts and the media cannot help but report. And then start to question without fear of litigation, backed up by those verdicts.

I feel the momentum is changing. As a whitewash camper, I wouldn't be surprised to be wrong, however.

Rowena Sat 27 Dec 2014, 12:05 pm

Cristobell wrote:
Freedom wrote:That's my feeling too.

Yes, we could all give up and go home (without accessing the Internet there!) because the mainstream media won't touch anything unfavourable to the McCanns with a bargepole - Rich D Hall's video being a prime example - but I for one am not going to do that.

I tend to think that Richard D. Hall's videos would have been far more successful if they had been accurate Freedom. Part 1 began with him calling Martin Smith, Malcolm and Part III (imo) deteriorated into farce with the attempts to link Murat to Smith to Tony's theory. It was also far too long. Few people have four hours to spare to watch a documentary, they were only going to be watched in their entirety by those who follow the case and the McCann's lawyers - and it was probably the lawyers who bumped up the hits, because even diehard followers of this case had a struggle to stick with it.

At the moment, there may be problems getting a mainstream channel to screen the new documentary, understandable as it is the subject of a current police investigation that may be reaching a conclusion. However, the McCanns are now backed right up into a corner and there is no way out. Suspicion around them is at its highest level since they first cried 'abduction'. The mainstream may be keeping up the illusion that everyone believes them, but the reality is quite different. If the McCanns had the public support they claim, their website and facebook page would have been inundated with Christmas messages from their supposed flock and we who protest the truth is being hidden, would have been savaged.

The truth is, the McCanns have very few supporters left. They can buy likes, shares and comments on Facebook, but the stark reality is, when they did their charity stunts they were hard pushed to reach their targets - the support it seems doesn't extend to hard cash and real people using their real names to show the world they are right behind the parents.

Agree Christobell. She is an amazing lady and deserves our full support for her upcoming documentary. The nasties, of course, will do their utmost to discredit her but that is to be expected. At the very least, Sonia is raising awareness and getting the truth out to the wider public. Sonia is renowned for fighting causes close to her heart with passion and determination. Great we have her onside in the fight for justice for Maddie, Amaral and Brenda

Dee Coy Sat 27 Dec 2014, 12:06 pm

Thomas Baden-Riess wrote:I tend to think we already know who the pro-McCann tweeeter is in the outside world. I think SP will have followed up on the evidence from Twitter and made sure that it was genuine. I personally think her video will be a big hit on the internet but won't get anywhere near the MSM.

Let's say, just for argument's sake (and this is just a theory) the prolific tweeter turns out to be a nanny, or another witness directly connected with the case and present in Portugal at the time.

If that news broke now, it would be buried and easily ignored. 'So what?', Joe Public would say. 'They were there and they are defending the McCanns. And quite right too, they, more than anyone, are in a position to know the truth'. A complete non-story.

But if Goncalo wins and it emerges dirty play was at work possibly within an organised circle of McCann followers in relation to Brenda, then what? Nothing in his book hindered the search for Madeleine - Goncalo reported the facts of the case. 'Oh', says Joe Public. 'What are those facts? Hang on, that means a key witness in the case has been spouting off in support of the family on Twitter? But the family might be wrong about the abduction. Isn't that giving false information which may affect a trial?'

I don't know if this will be picked up on and reported, or even if the verdicts will go the right way. But if it did all happen, then the timing of Sonia's video could be crucial.

Guest Sat 27 Dec 2014, 12:56 pm

Dee Coy wrote:
Thomas Baden-Riess wrote:I tend to think we already know who the pro-McCann tweeeter is in the outside world. I think SP will have followed up on the evidence from Twitter and made sure that it was genuine. I personally think her video will be a big hit on the internet but won't get anywhere near the MSM.

Let's say, just for argument's sake (and this is just a theory) the prolific tweeter turns out to be a nanny, or another witness directly connected with the case and present in Portugal at the time.

If that news broke now, it would be buried and easily ignored. 'So what?', Joe Public would say. 'They were there and they are defending the McCanns. And quite right too, they, more than anyone, are in a position to know the truth'. A complete non-story.

But if Goncalo wins and it emerges dirty play was at work possibly within an organised circle of McCann followers in relation to Brenda, then what? Nothing in his book hindered the search for Madeleine - Goncalo reported the facts of the case. 'Oh', says Joe Public. 'What are those facts? Hang on, that means a key witness in the case has been spouting off in support of the family on Twitter? But the family might be wrong about the abduction. Isn't that giving false information which may affect a trial?'

I don't know if this will be picked up on and reported, or even if the verdicts will go the right way. But if it did all happen, then the timing of Sonia's video could be crucial.

Yes it's a good point Dee Coy. I guess it also depends on the solidity of the evidence. It could be that SP has put flesh and bones on the original accusation

Marky Sat 27 Dec 2014, 1:00 pm

i doubt she's put flesh and bones on anything. she only got into this case 2 months ago. if she has anything, she's been fed it.
Very Happy

Rowena Sat 27 Dec 2014, 1:11 pm

My understanding is her docu is not so much about the case. She is focusing on the events leading up to Brenda L's untimely death.

Guest Sat 27 Dec 2014, 1:16 pm

Marky wrote:i doubt she's put flesh and bones on anything. she only got into this case 2 months ago. if she has anything, she's been fed it.

I thought she'd been on the case for over a year now?

Marky Sat 27 Dec 2014, 1:32 pm

Thomas Baden-Riess wrote:
Marky wrote:i doubt she's put flesh and bones on anything. she only got into this case 2 months ago. if she has anything, she's been fed it.

I thought she'd been on the case for over a year now?

i doubt that. she's not that kind of journalist. she jumped on board following the hue and cry over brenda leyland.

Very Happy

dogs don't lie Sat 27 Dec 2014, 1:35 pm

I just watched her interviewing SB over a year ago.

**candyfloss** Sat 27 Dec 2014, 1:39 pm

Marky wrote:
Thomas Baden-Riess wrote:
Marky wrote:i doubt she's put flesh and bones on anything. she only got into this case 2 months ago. if she has anything, she's been fed it.

I thought she'd been on the case for over a year now?

i doubt that. she's not that kind of journalist. she jumped on board following the hue and cry over brenda leyland.

As DDL has just said, she has been around quite a while.

Dee Coy Sat 27 Dec 2014, 1:40 pm

Cristobell, how clued-up was she when she interviewed you?

**Freedom** Sat 27 Dec 2014, 1:41 pm

http://madeleinemccannthetruth.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/sonia-poulton-interview-with-rosalinda-hutton-transcript/

She also interviewed Cristobell a year ago.

Marky Sat 27 Dec 2014, 1:46 pm

dogs don't lie wrote:I just watched her interviewing SB over a year ago.

oh yeah, stephen birch. Rolling Eyes

dogs don't lie Sat 27 Dec 2014, 2:12 pm

Marky wrote:
dogs don't lie wrote:I just watched her interviewing SB over a year ago.

oh yeah, stephen birch.

Yep, I was just pointing out it was in October 13 Very Happy

Rowena Sat 27 Dec 2014, 2:18 pm

Marky wrote:
Thomas Baden-Riess wrote:
Marky wrote:i doubt she's put flesh and bones on anything. she only got into this case 2 months ago. if she has anything, she's been fed it.

I thought she'd been on the case for over a year now?

i doubt that. she's not that kind of journalist. she jumped on board following the hue and cry over brenda leyland.

Are we to assume from your laughing smiley that you think it all hilarious? Had you sat with Sonia in the coroner's court perhaps you would have realized this is no laughing matter. .

Marky Sat 27 Dec 2014, 2:19 pm

Rowena wrote:

Are we to assume from your laughing smiley that you think it all hilarious? Had you sat with Sonia in the coroner's court perhaps you would have realized this is no laughing matter. .

'we'?

**Freedom** Sat 27 Dec 2014, 2:37 pm

Not the royal "we", I don't think. I'm happy to be included in that question from Rowena.

Marky Sat 27 Dec 2014, 2:40 pm

Freedom wrote:Not the royal "we", I don't think. I'm happy to be included in that question from Rowena.

funny how it's taken 68 posts for the question to be asked. no, one or two people here don't like being differed with.

Very Happy

Sponsored content