Sonia Poulton's documentary

Pseudo Nym wrote:I've tweeted Stacey before on several topics in the past. The only time she hasn't replied, is when I mentioned the McCann case. Always worth another try.

Typical! I really would like know what it is about the case that makes every journalist crap themselves? I really don't think it is the M's or the case itself. Maybe it is such an ingrained myth that all media assume it is untouchable?

Just for information, as Cristobell's interview in The Sun has been mentioned, I'm reposting what I said about it in February 2015 after checking the differences between what she actually said and what was printed. This is for the benefit of those who didn't see it at the time; no more debates please as to whether or not it was a wise thing to do - we've been there and done that many, many times over.

"I have now seen the original series of e-mails between Cristobell and Martin Daubney and this is my report on how they differ from the version in The Sun.

The heading "I can be quite a bitch...." is unfortunate. The obvious intention is to attract the reader's attention but it is out of context. Cristobell was referring to being goaded into responses by the foul-mouthed trolls who were harassing her. Most of us would find it difficult not to respond to such provocation.

This original sentence "I was saying that I didn’t believe the McCanns and suddenly I became this object of attack by these absolutely crazy people" turned into "I was attacking the McCanns and suddenly I became this object of attack by absolutely crazy people”.

This sentence in the paper "In revenge, Hutton dished out some serious abuse" appears nowhere in the original version. How rude by the way to refer to her by her surname. Yes, she did respond in kind to the trolls previously mentioned but she wasn't abusive to the McCanns.

The intended humour of the remark "It was like kicking a dog, really" is lost on some people. Maybe it's not very funny but I certainly didn't take it seriously.

There were some sentences not included but I don't feel that they affected the general tone.

The article is really focusing on the dangers that there can be when conversing with people in chat rooms and on forums as, while you can meet some good friends there, others are extremely unsavoury and use the anonymity of the Internet to behave in a way that we can only hope they don't in the real world.

It is almost irrelevant that the subject was the McCanns; it could have just as well been religion (boy, does that stir people up) or something as innocuous as supporting a particular football team or liking a certain entertainer.

I hope that this will help to convey a more favourable impression of what was (intended to be) said".

Thanks for that Freedom I had forgotten you saw the original script and convo..

It's a shame people keep dragging it up, we know for sure the press twist things, and even in the very early days when TB made that film about the Madeleine Foundation, things got altered out of context and made to look in a bad light according to some. People were fuming, I remember it at the time and TB posted all up the correspondence.  The  Press cherry pick bits and put them out of context, why some choose to believe some things and not others is not the way to look at things.  I think we all know by now not to believe everything we read....