Sonia Poulton's documentary

Jeez, every word of that could be true, but she's still fighting on.

That announcement is a positive, is it not...

A bit of transparency, that we have all wanted.

We knew she faced ' struggles' and no doubt its been hard. When you have someone who claims to be a M truthseeker but works round the clock to discredit, then you know the nail is not far from its head.

Keep it up and all the best.

Thank you so much for that, Mo. All the questions about her motives surely answered.

So there we have it folks. What a brave lady.

Not so far from what I assumed to be happening behind the scenes. Pray God the latest wealthy benefactor stays with her and she gets the broadcasting support overseas she needs.

I really hope her opponents - who also claim to be on the side of truth for Madeleine - read that and recognise their part played in the difficulties she has faced. And examine themselves closely.

Ditto from me.

Fingers crossed about the benefactor.

First post so be gentle please; why do you think that Sonia has had such a hard time yet Richard D Hall is regularly putting out extremely damaging productions without claiming even an ounce of interference? Whilst Sonia points out YouTube has different rules, ultimately that's where hers will end up imo.

Top Cat wrote:First post so be gentle please; why do you think that Sonia has had such a hard time yet Richard D Hall is regularly putting out extremely damaging productions without claiming even an ounce of interference? Whilst Sonia points out YouTube has different rules, ultimately that's where hers will end up imo.

I guess Sonia herself tells the answer to that in the diary:

"There are over 36,000 entries on the subject on YouTube with hundreds of thousands of comments disagreeing with the abduction theory - but that is where it remains: on the Internet.

This is a story that needs to be challenged in mainstream media and on TV and that's where such a documentary needs to be.

Of course there are many advantages on YouTube. You don't have to go through a gatekeeper who has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and it takes a fraction of the time to do it compared to what it takes to create a film to the standard demanded for TV.

The pros, though, do not outweigh the cons and that is it is too easy to dismiss the veracity of YouTubes because they do not go through the same scrupulous fact checking demanded on TV.

Anyone can make a YouTube and there is no comeback from a legal perspective. A lawyer tells me it's because YouTubes are easy to discredit as the work of amateurs with flawed research.
It's interesting that despite Kate and Gerry suing many media outlets, there is no suggestion of the same happening with the multitude of online videos even though there are some excellent, well-researched ones."

She doesn't see the point of a 'YouTube'. This is a documentary for MSM or it's not worth doing at all. YouTube stuff remains on YouTube, even the films most viewed, like Ricgard D Hall's, only have 10's of thousands of views. A tiny drop in the ocean.

That's why she's welcomed the new funding to meet overseas broadcasters.

Interestingly Cristobell always says KISS (keep it simple stupid) should be our watchword,with no crazy conspiracy theories......


The truth remains, there are people in influential positions in the UK and they have no appetite for questioning the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.  I have discovered ....Sonia Poulton

Here is Sonia's diary.

The Untold Story of Madeleine McCann

A War of Information

PRODUCTION JOURNAL (2014 - PRESENT)

http://www.theuntoldstoryofmadeleinemccann.com/

Dee Coy wrote:

Top Cat wrote:First post so be gentle please; why do you think that Sonia has had such a hard time yet Richard D Hall is regularly putting out extremely damaging productions without claiming even an ounce of interference? Whilst Sonia points out YouTube has different rules, ultimately that's where hers will end up imo.

I guess Sonia herself tells the answer to that in the diary:

"There are over 36,000 entries on the subject on YouTube with hundreds of thousands of comments disagreeing with the abduction theory - but that is where it remains: on the Internet.

This is a story that needs to be challenged in mainstream media and on TV and that's where such a documentary needs to be.

Of course there are many advantages on YouTube. You don't have to go through a gatekeeper who has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and it takes a fraction of the time to do it compared to what it takes to create a film to the standard demanded for TV.

The pros, though, do not outweigh the cons and that is it is too easy to dismiss the veracity of YouTubes because they do not go through the same scrupulous fact checking demanded on TV.

Anyone can make a YouTube and there is no comeback from a legal perspective. A lawyer tells me it's because YouTubes are easy to discredit as the work of amateurs with flawed research.  
It's interesting that despite Kate and Gerry suing many media outlets, there is no suggestion of the same happening with the multitude of online videos even though there are some excellent, well-researched ones."

She doesn't see the point of a 'YouTube'. This is a documentary for MSM or it's not worth doing at all. YouTube stuff remains on YouTube, even the films most viewed, like Ricgard D Hall's, only have 10's of thousands of views. A tiny drop in the ocean.

That's why she's welcomed the new funding to meet overseas broadcasters.

I did read her diary! The question still remain, why does RDH not have similar hassles? At this point in time there has been a considerable number of people who have seen his films (not just the new ones) and none have seen Sonia's so why does she get the intimidation and he doesn't?

ETA. The claim that she doesn't want it to just be on the internet doesn't really stack up, newspapers are dying and online content/media is growing, the Independent and BBC3 being just two examples

Top Cat wrote:First post so be gentle please; why do you think that Sonia has had such a hard time yet Richard D Hall is regularly putting out extremely damaging productions without claiming even an ounce of interference? Whilst Sonia points out YouTube has different rules, ultimately that's where hers will end up imo.

Hello. I (personally) think Sonia has struggled big time. The right intentions were there, but couldnt get it casted. Barriers and all that (at the mo).

From what i have seen briefly, with regards to RH videos, its all about misinformation. Repeat guff enough then people believe. ( see blue ink across the road).

Potentially the biggest trial ever coming up....  Lots to try and scupper that.

Remember that too.

Welcome Top Cat.

Yes Sonia has had a lot of obstacles put in her way and her life made very difficult.  Many trying to smear her and stop her video.

Pat Brown has just written a blog on the R D Hall video here..


https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t1197-pat-brown-from-theory-to-profile-how-agenda-creates-nonevidence-based-conclusions

Hi Andrew, although there's plenty 'meat' to be had from the trailer we've had a bit about Brenda and social + media behaviour nothing in that was actually about what happened to Madeleine. Her angle seems different to RDH where he has gone for the jugular so to speak.

Top Cat wrote:
I did read her diary! The question still remain, why does RDH not have similar hassles? At this point in time there has been a considerable number of people who have seen his films (not just the new ones) and none have seen Sonia's so why does she get the intimidation and he doesn't?

ETA. The claim that she doesn't want it to just be on the internet doesn't really stack up, newspapers are dying and online content/media is growing, the Independent and BBC3 being just two examples

Because Hall's films are made for YouTube, for a tiny (in the scheme of things) audience and are therefore no real threat.

Poulton, a journalist of some repute, openly admitting she is producing a film for the masses - a film which exposes the truth - is a different kettle of fish so 'action' has been taken. It's like comparing stopping a mouse (you could set a trap if you could be bothered, but is it worth it?) to stopping an elephant charging towards your house. You'd take preventative action in the case of the elephant.

Don't really get your ETA. It's a film for a popular broadcaster or not at all. She could have made and put online a YouTube in a couple of weeks if she'd wanted to. Her claim that she doesn't want it just to be internet based doesn't not only 'add up', it's the raison d'être for the documentary in the first place!

Welcome, btw!

Hi, depends what you mean by the jugular. What i find odd is that streams of tripe was targeted on Sonia. Discrediting and all that, from all corners (over the road especially), but nothing (and rightly so) happened.

RH had an (obvious TB influence) which is a massive shame.

Misinformation as mentioned elsewhere. If you wanted to mess up a trial in the court of law then this (misinformation) is what its about.

candyfloss wrote: Welcome Top Cat.

Yes Sonia has had a lot of obstacles put in her way and her life made very difficult.  Many trying to smear her and stop her video.

Pat Brown has just written a blog on the R D Hall video here..


https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t1197-pat-brown-from-theory-to-profile-how-agenda-creates-nonevidence-based-conclusions

Thanks for that, an interesting read. What Pat is (for me) missing is that RDH is not as far as I'm aware claiming that his theory is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It's an intepretation of evidence from the files and media reporting as far as I can see, I don't think he is claiming to have cracked the case.

Andrew wrote:Hi, depends what you mean by the jugular. What i find odd is that streams of tripe was targeted on Sonia. Discrediting and all that, from all corners (over the road especially), but nothing (and rightly so) happened.

RH had an (obvious TB influence) which is a massive shame.

Misinformation as mentioned elsewhere. If you wanted to mess up a trial in the court of law then this (misinformation) is what its about.

Jugular as in Maddie is dead and died before the claimed Thursday imo (accusation deleted) I agree there's been a TB influence there are hallmarks all over the place.

Dee Coy wrote:

Top Cat wrote:
I did read her diary! The question still remain, why does RDH not have similar hassles? At this point in time there has been a considerable number of people who have seen his films (not just the new ones) and none have seen Sonia's so why does she get the intimidation and he doesn't?

ETA. The claim that she doesn't want it to just be on the internet doesn't really stack up, newspapers are dying and online content/media is growing, the Independent and BBC3 being just two examples

Because Hall's films are made for YouTube, for a tiny (in the scheme of things) audience and are therefore no real threat.

Poulton, a journalist of some repute, openly admitting she is producing a film for the masses - a film which exposes the truth - is a different kettle of fish so 'action' has been taken. It's like comparing stopping a mouse (you could set a trap if you could be bothered, but is it worth it?) to stopping an elephant charging towards your house. You'd take preventative action in the case of the elephant.

Don't really get your ETA. It's a film for a popular broadcaster or not at all. She could have made and put online a YouTube in a couple of weeks if she'd wanted to. Her claim that she doesn't want it just to be internet based doesn't not only 'add up', it's the raison d'être for the documentary in the first place!

Welcome, btw!

Your having a laugh if you think that putting it on YouTube is for a tiny audience the potential is far higher to be seen in greater numbers (across the world) than on a UK mainstream broadcast.

I wonder if there would have been a problem if Sonia, like Richard, had made a DVD (is that expensive ?) and then put it on Youtube as well.

Top Cat wrote:
Your having a laugh if you think that putting it on YouTube is for a tiny audience the potential is far higher to be seen in greater numbers (across the world) than on a UK mainstream broadcast.

Richard D Hall's films on Madeleine:

True Story (full length) - 65000 views.

Phantoms - 44000 views

110,000 viewers, many of whom will be the same people watching both films. About 70,000 then? That's not even Wembley-stadium-full. Not very funny at all.

I don't understand the last part of this diary? Effectively she is back at square one but now has funding from a wealthy backer (fair enough) but talks of going overseas to talk to a broadcaster.

Presumably this would be North America or Australia being English speaking but it would still mean it wouldn't be broadcast on Television here.

Have to say if it is a choice between not releasing anything and releasing on Youtube and similar surely you take the later option?

One other thing that came up in this (again!) is the FOI requests being denied because its a "National Security" matter. Is this just a cover all excuse or is it really a National Security matter and if so, how?

There's some interesting reactions to this over't'rerd.

Richard iv (good poster!) and sallypelt appreciating the efforts I believe, cottoning on to the Gamble references too. Others on there looking for ways to take offence but aquila posting the lot (credit) and seemingly musing the contents. Let's see how reaction evolves towards what, to me, is an openly honest account of the nasties lurking around the corners of the McCann labyrinth. Just can't see how this could reflect badly on Sonia, myself.

Dee Coy wrote:

Top Cat wrote:
Your having a laugh if you think that putting it on YouTube is for a tiny audience the potential is far higher to be seen in greater numbers (across the world) than on a UK mainstream broadcast.

Richard D Hall's films on Madeleine:

True Story (full length) - 65000 views.

Phantoms - 44000 views

110,000 viewers, many of whom will be the same people watching both films. About 70,000 then? That's not even Wembley-stadium-full. Not very funny at all.

Which part of 'potential' did you not get? More people have access to the Internet than watch any of the top rated TV programmes, the potential worldwide audience is greater than anything on what could only be transmitted by the likes of channel 5 (BBC or itv won't touch it). Also 110,000 hits is 110,000 up on Sonia at the moment. I still go back to why has something that nobody has seen brought intimidation and threats when there is already another producer who has actally produced several damning films and reported none of this, seems odd. This national security thing that several people have reported as FOI answers is very intriguing and may very well be why this case will never be 'solved'.

Dee Coy wrote:There's some interesting reactions to this over't'rerd.

Richard iv (good poster!) and sallypelt appreciating the efforts I believe, cottoning on to the Gamble references too. Others on there looking for ways to take offence but aquila posting the lot (credit) and seemingly musing the contents. Let's see how reaction evolves towards what, to me, is an openly honest account of the nasties lurking around the corners of the McCann labyrinth. Just can't see how this could reflect badly on Sonia, myself.

Really ?  Have you not noticed she`s a woman, has long blonde hair, wears make-up and probably paints her fingernails.

Top Cat wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

Top Cat wrote:
Your having a laugh if you think that putting it on YouTube is for a tiny audience the potential is far higher to be seen in greater numbers (across the world) than on a UK mainstream broadcast.

Richard D Hall's films on Madeleine:

True Story (full length) - 65000 views.

Phantoms - 44000 views

110,000 viewers, many of whom will be the same people watching both films. About 70,000 then? That's not even Wembley-stadium-full. Not very funny at all.

Which part of 'potential' did you not get? More people have access to the Internet than watch any of the top rated TV programmes, the potential worldwide audience is greater than anything on what could only be transmitted by the likes of channel 5 (BBC or itv won't touch it). Also 110,000 hits is 110,000 up on Sonia at the moment. I still go back to why has something that nobody has seen brought intimidation and threats when there is already another producer who has actally produced several damning films and reported none of this, seems odd. This national security thing that several people have reported as FOI answers is very intriguing and may very well be why this case will never be 'solved'.

  Perhaps the 'other' producer is not seen as a credible threat, perhaps because the other producer did not approach main stream TV but put his work on DVD and on You Tube so didn't rattle any cages.  Sonia has interviewed many 'main players' as she called it.  I think the problem was that she did advertise it too much early on, not realising the trouble it would bring upon her.

Main stream TV is by far the better medium it can attract millions of viewers which we know it did by the Crimewatch figures and the interest it generated.  Then it goes on you tube anyway copied by many and posted...... so it basically has both options, and the best of both worlds.

Top Cat wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

Top Cat wrote:
Your having a laugh if you think that putting it on YouTube is for a tiny audience the potential is far higher to be seen in greater numbers (across the world) than on a UK mainstream broadcast.

Richard D Hall's films on Madeleine:

True Story (full length) - 65000 views.

Phantoms - 44000 views

110,000 viewers, many of whom will be the same people watching both films. About 70,000 then? That's not even Wembley-stadium-full. Not very funny at all.

Which part of 'potential' did you not get?

How rude you are.

Top Cat wrote:More people have access to the Internet than watch any of the top rated TV programmes, the potential worldwide audience is greater than anything on what could only be transmitted by the likes of channel 5 (BBC or itv won't touch it).

Potentially any number of people could watch any programme made, with digital catch-up. But they don't. And a tiny fraction of those watching mainstream TV watch programmes on YouTube. And no more than 70,000-odd have watched RDH's films, which is a crying shame, of course. Your point is?

Top Cat wrote: Also 110,000 hits is 110,000 up on Sonia at the moment. I still go back to why has something that nobody has seen brought intimidation and threats when there is already another producer who has actally produced several damning films and reported none of this, seems odd.

Explained this already. The potential audience which you perceive to be so large is perceived to be tiny by the people who matter. So tiny they cannot be bothered to set the mouse-trap. It's irrelevant in the scheme of things. If RDH's viewing figures suddenly start approaching the levels of 'YouTubers' Dan and Phil, for example, we'd soon see the gunmen lining up to stop the elephant. But we're miles off that with Hall's figures, aren't we? I know you've said you've read it, but I suggest you read Sonia's diary again as she explains her reasons for retaining this for a mainstream broadcaster far better than I can repeating them second-hand on here.

Top Cat wrote:This national security thing that several people have reported as FOI answers is very intriguing and may very well be why this case will never be 'solved'.

Agree completely.