Sonia Poulton doorsteps Kate for new documentary

dogs don't lie wrote:Has anyone read the open letter to JG from SP?

***
Link?

Châtelaine wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:Has anyone read the open letter to JG from SP?

***
Link?

Sorry Chatelaine, but Dee Coy has it on now in the portal x

I've read it meanwhile DDL. Thank you.

Châtelaine wrote:I've read it meanwhile DDL. Thank you.

No probs, wish I knew how to get it!

Resistor wrote:

Correct, and I named a very prolific (and nasty) twitter name, and who Brenda Leyland believed it to be.  

Has it ever been disclosed who this individual currently works for? In their "official" capacity I mean.

Sent you a PM, Clay.

Just re-running Sonia`s Youtube video about her documentary.

She says she`s doorstepped 4 people who were there at the centre of the scenario.  So the other 3 must be the Paynes, the Oldfields and the O`Brien/Tanners.

She also mentions she is going to expose a person we are all going to be very surprised about. A person who has been campaigning to maintain the abduction theory.  But I cannot understand why we will all be surprised - the obvious ones we all know about surely.

I guess that line about exposing a pro would be aimed at the general public that don't read forums like this, Mimi?

Or is it someone we would never suspect of being a pro? Someone who is a prolific tweeter she said. Hmmm.
Or is it someone who we know to be a pro but their real identity will shock us?

The last one would be a real twist for sure! We wait and see.

I can't imagine the real identity of a prolific supporter being a surprise to anyone.

I think it's more likely to be someone who professes not to believe the McCanns.

Wonder what she means about `somebody who is very prolific on-line` - could it be someone who has their own Pro-blog or is a regular poster on forums perhaps or just a Pro Twitterer.

I can think of one person that would shock posters on the top two Madeleine discussion forums. I do think whoever it is, it would be someone we have seen the face of. Not a anonymous Twitterer.

Or Sonia could just be over hyping it.

I was thinking it could be someone who has a real looking Facebook account, who is very prolific in their support of the Macs but is in fact the fake persona of someone we think of as an anti. In other words this person`s real persona appears to be anti but behind closed doors they are active in the pro fora and on Twitter. It is very easy to fake a FB account, even putting up photos and snippets of your life to create an image. For example Terence Brown posts as an anti using his real name. ON FB he becomes Pauline Gordon who is very active in promoting the cause of the parents. "Her" FB looks real if you don't look too closely.
Does that make sense?

I *think* I get what your saying Chirpy but the lengths some people go to just makes my head hurt.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I *think* I get what your saying Chirpy but the lengths some people go to just makes my head hurt.

You are lucky! I have baffled myself.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I guess that line about exposing a pro would be aimed at the general public that don't read forums like this, Mimi?

But why wait until after the end of the Amaral vs McCann case, I can't see the point really.

What difference will it make to anything anyway, so what if a pro-McCann person is outed as an anti-McCann or vice versa, or have I missed something.

It's not going to make any difference to the PJ/SY investigation.

If she doorstepped one of the Tapas friends and got an interview with them then that would be a revelation but I can't see that happening in a million years, they wouldn't dare to say anything in case they put their foot in their mouth. If it was Murat, he's said a lot over the past 8 years anyway, so nothing new there.

I also read somewhere that she is employed by SKY, which seems to cancel out her being "independent" as a journalist.  I did think she may have something interesting to say until I saw that she is employed by SKY and has been for some time, that's if it's true, I'm only going by what I've read on the internet.

Sonia is a freelance journalist, so she may well be employed by SKY sometimes, but on other occasions she is employed by the Daily Mail, the Express, ITV and Channel 4 (this is all on her website). I think she has said that she has not yet settled on a broadcaster for her Madeleine film, so I don't think we can assume that it will be influenced in any way by SKY. Even if SKY were to decide to broadcast the film, I get the impression that Sonia values the integrity of the project highly and will expect it to be broadcast in its entirety.
Would SKY be a likely outlet for such a film? Who knows? They might feel that this would be a good time to demonstrate journalistic balance after the Brenda Leyland debacle, but I tend to think they'll avoid it like the plague.

Channel 4 might do it. They have never been afraid of a bit of controversy.

I understand from one of her tweets that she won't have the documentary finished while March. I suppose it has to be edited etc plus she hasn't finished interviewing yet- not long to get it ready when you think about it, it's February on Sunday.

I wonder if Amaral is included,can't be a proper docu with out his input surely.

She says she's spoken to Katerina Gaspar.

Popcorn wrote:Sonia is a freelance journalist, so she may well be employed by SKY sometimes, but on other occasions she is employed by the Daily Mail, the Express, ITV and Channel 4 (this is all on her website). I think she has said that she has not yet settled on a broadcaster for her Madeleine film, so I don't think we can assume that it will be influenced in any way by SKY. Even if SKY were to decide to broadcast the film, I get the impression that Sonia values the integrity of the project highly and will expect it to be broadcast in its entirety.
Would SKY be a likely outlet for such a film? Who knows? They might feel that this would be a good time to demonstrate journalistic balance after the Brenda Leyland debacle, but I tend to think they'll avoid it like the plague.

Seeing that SKY may have hounded Brenda to her death and had no qualms about what Martin Brunt did to her and SP works and gets paid by SKY I can't see what SP will come up with without SKY agreeing to anything that may be made by her.  After all SKY may have a huge compensation claim hovering over their heads for years to come, unless SP knows any differently.  It all seems very hypocritical to me as if SP has been sent out by SKY as some "Knight in Shining Armour" to sooth everything over.

Is she going to bite the hand that feeds her, I doubt it very muich.

N.B.  Whilst sending my post I saw that apparently SP has interviewed Katerina Gaspar.  Is that even allowed in an ongoing police investigation??  Why is she getting involved, wouldn't that be seen as interfering with a police investigation?  Is she trying to destroy the investigation for some reason, it all seems very suspect to me.

Good for Sonia,but it must be costing her a fortune to make this documentary.

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

Popcorn wrote:Sonia is a freelance journalist, so she may well be employed by SKY sometimes, but on other occasions she is employed by the Daily Mail, the Express, ITV and Channel 4 (this is all on her website). I think she has said that she has not yet settled on a broadcaster for her Madeleine film, so I don't think we can assume that it will be influenced in any way by SKY. Even if SKY were to decide to broadcast the film, I get the impression that Sonia values the integrity of the project highly and will expect it to be broadcast in its entirety.
Would SKY be a likely outlet for such a film? Who knows? They might feel that this would be a good time to demonstrate journalistic balance after the Brenda Leyland debacle, but I tend to think they'll avoid it like the plague.

Seeing that SKY may have hounded Brenda to her death and had no qualms about what Martin Brunt did to her and SP works and gets paid by SKY I can't see what SP will come up with without SKY agreeing to anything that may be made by her.  After all SKY may have a huge compensation claim hovering over their heads for years to come, unless SP knows any differently.  It all seems very hypocritical to me as if SP has been sent out by SKY as some "Knight in Shining Armour" to sooth everything over.

Is she going to bite the hand that feeds her, I doubt it very muich.

N.B.  Whilst sending my post I saw that apparently SP has interviewed Katerina Gaspar.  Is that even allowed in an ongoing police investigation??  Why is she getting involved, wouldn't that be seen as interfering with a police investigation?  Is she trying to destroy the investigation for some reason, it all seems very suspect to me.

I don't claim any inside knowledge here, but just because a freelancer has appeared on SKY does not make her owned by them or acting on their behalf. Sonia has a variety of different employers and is not reliant on SKY. If this was a programme SKY wanted to make, surely they'd put one of their own faces at the forefront – not Brunt perhaps, but another regular news reporter. That said, why should SKY necessarily come out of any Madeleine documentary in a worse position than they are already?
Look at where they stand at the moment. It seems to me that SKY was approached by the "dossier compilers" and their associates and told that here was a story about a seemingly respectable woman who was making the poor McCanns' lives a misery by "trolling" them on line day in day out – as if losing a child wasn't bad enough. SKY responded in the manner of most media outlets when offered a McCann story - they went for it because a) McCann stories are popular with the public and b) it offered them the opportunity to play the "good guys" defending these unfortunate parents against a crazy, obsessive "troll". It looked like an easy win. Unfortunately they didn't check out the troll or the dossier very thoroughly, the "troll" turned out not to be not what most people would define as a troll (no threats, no direct messages to the McCanns) and to top it all she then went off and (apparently) killed herself, making SKY look very bad indeed. Their veteran reporter Martin Brunt became a villain overnight instead of the valiant defender of the tragic parents.
Sonia has made it clear that she is focusing very hard on the dossier and its compilers. She has also said she must wait until after Brenda Leyland's inquest to show her film. Why? Could it be because, as well as tracking down those behind this dossier, she has also spoken to Brunt and others at SKY and found out what they were told and how they came to run with the story? The truth is that SKY are up to their necks in the brown stuff over Brenda Leyland, but perhaps Sonia's film, exposing the whole "trollgate affair" from beginning to end, may reveal that while SKY made an extremely bad call, perhaps there are others who are bigger villains in this piece.
Again, this is just a theory. I don't know what Sonia's film includes beyond what she has mentioned online.