The Untold Story of Madeleine McCann

An update from Sonia Poulton regarding her upcoming documentary:

Merci winjoy. What a courageous lady!

Thanks for that, winjoy.

I've tweeted it.

I'm looking forward to seeing it.

I hope Sonia is watching her back.

"Damning new Madeleine documentary promised for 2015". The Portugal Resident has an article on Sonia Poulton's "evidence based" documentary. www.portugalresident.com

weissnicht wrote:I hope Sonia is watching her back.

Names and other info should be shared between trusted collegues so it won't be lost or stolen. I'm sure Sonia will have backed everything up in inaccessible places...encrypted of course.

...and when the time comes, only give out copies.

interested wrote:"Damning new Madeleine documentary promised for 2015".  The Portugal Resident has an article on Sonia Poulton's "evidence based" documentary.   www.portugalresident.com

Thanks for the link.

If Sonia u/l to YouTube it will be available to an untold number of people. It won't stop us d/l it if UK blocks it as it will be still available.

Hope the docu gets finished as planned and I am looking forward to seeing it.

i really don't know whether to laugh or cry. sonia poulton styles herself as a ‘journalist’, she is not. a journalist has integrity and does research. she is just a woman with an opinion on everything and her media résumé indicative of the desperation that day time television have in finding a ‘talking head’ and the willingness of a newspaper run on a shoestring to find someone cheap to fill in a column or two. she should stick to engaging in bitchy stand offs with katie hopkins on trashy daytime tv shows like this morning and writing drivel in tabloid newspapers; can't help laughing at the irony here. if anyone here honestly thinks she's cracked this particular nut in the few minutes it took me to write this post then you are truly desparate. this 'documentary', if it ever sees the light of day and after all, if it's so revealing why not air it now, is quite likely just a mish mash of what everybody already knows.

if it's that at all.  

Marky wrote:i really don't know whether to laugh or cry. sonia poulton styles herself as a ‘journalist’, she is not. a journalist has integrity and does research. she is just a woman with an opinion on everything and her media résumé indicative of the desperation that day time television have in finding a ‘talking head’ and the willingness of a newspaper run on a shoestring to find someone cheap to fill in a column or two. she should stick to engaging in bitchy stand offs with katie hopkins on trashy daytime tv shows like this morning and writing drivel in tabloid newspapers; can't help laughing at the irony here. if anyone here honestly thinks she's cracked this particular nut in the few minutes it took me to write this post then you are truly desparate. this 'documentary', if it ever sees the light of day and after all, if it's so revealing why not air it now, is quite likely just a mish mash of what everybody already knows.

if it's that at all.  

Well, those from UK's MSM that you maybe do call journalist, have produced nothing worthwhile so far. Just plain crap. I wouldn't call them journalist. mccann circus members ..more likely.

So far:
- I haven't seen the Sonia program yet, I have no opinion about it. I just have to wait and see.
- I have seen work of so called journalist, and I'm not impressed, not at all. Looks like bag full of shite.

weissnicht wrote:

Marky wrote:i really don't know whether to laugh or cry. sonia poulton styles herself as a ‘journalist’, she is not. a journalist has integrity and does research. she is just a woman with an opinion on everything and her media résumé indicative of the desperation that day time television have in finding a ‘talking head’ and the willingness of a newspaper run on a shoestring to find someone cheap to fill in a column or two. she should stick to engaging in bitchy stand offs with katie hopkins on trashy daytime tv shows like this morning and writing drivel in tabloid newspapers; can't help laughing at the irony here. if anyone here honestly thinks she's cracked this particular nut in the few minutes it took me to write this post then you are truly desparate. this 'documentary', if it ever sees the light of day and after all, if it's so revealing why not air it now, is quite likely just a mish mash of what everybody already knows.

if it's that at all.  

Well, those from UK's MSM that you maybe do call journalist, have produced nothing worthwhile so far. Just plain crap. I wouldn't call them journalist. mccann circus members ..more likely.

sadly handicapped by the law. an inconvenience wouldn't you say?

ps. there's a line in my original post. thanks for swallowing it.

Quote Marky "ps. there's a line in my original post. thanks for swallowing it."

Is that your best 'argument'?

weissnicht wrote:

Is that your best 'argument'?

no. it's an observation.

Marky, your post comes over as a little child throwing a tantrum just as mccann pros when we hit a nerve.

From what I've seen of papers, I don't think we have journos who do any research and certainly aren't allowed to print it.

There is nothing lost in waiting till Sonia says the docu will be ready for release. We all have had to wait for many things in the last 7+ years.

whatsupdoc wrote:Marky, your post comes over as a little child throwing a tantrum just as mccann pros when we hit a nerve.

From what I've seen of papers, I don't think we have journos who do any research and certainly aren't allowed to print it.

There is nothing lost in waiting till Sonia says the docu will be ready for release. We all have had to wait for many things in the last 7+ years.

didn't expect many to like it and your response certainly won't be the last and if you think your hitting a nerve then you need to wake up. the media made its own bed when it reprinted what the portuguese media started doing what you want to happen. they couldn't prove any of the accusations and paid a heavy price. now they tread carefully. it would be interesting to see if you were prepared to say out loud what you think the media should but then we both know the answer to that don't we?

Newspapers print the views of the editor whether they are true or not with a sprinkling of real news thrown in ...hence I have never bought a newspaper ....except one to check an ad.

Both the papers and all tv news have put out stories given to them via the pink one and the mccanns. As an example, would you put out stories from someone who could have committed a serious crime and not mention any other possibility as to who committed the crime or how it was done?

There has not been a truthful, balanced media in the UK for many years. The story of an abductor is one told by Kate McCann who, IMO, should be a prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance. She is not even an independent witness. The story has not been corroborated by an independent witness so for the media to print endless stories based on this is not balanced reporting. Selling newspapers makes a lot of money even after paying out damages which sells even more papers.

If it was the government who decided to support the mccanns then I think they made a big mistake and could lose many votes in May. Sometimes in an election, even 1 vote can make a big difference.

So, my view is that unless there is real, truthful news don't mention it. I'm tired of seeing Breaking News on BBC when somebody's hat blows off.

Over and out , cocker. Shame Dexter M ended.

whatsupdoc wrote:Newspapers print the views of the editor whether they are true or not with a sprinkling of real news thrown in ...hence I have never bought a newspaper ....except one to check an ad.

Both the papers and all tv news have put out stories given to them via the pink one and the mccanns. As an example, would you put out stories from someone who could have committed a serious crime and not mention any other possibility as to who committed the crime or how it was done?  

There has not been a truthful, balanced media in the UK for many years.  The story of an abductor is one told by Kate McCann who, IMO, should be a prime suspect in Madeleine's disappearance. She is not even an independent witness. The story has not been corroborated by an independent witness so for the media to print endless stories based on this is not balanced reporting. Selling newspapers makes a lot of money even after paying out damages which sells even more papers.

If it was the government who decided to support the mccanns then I think they made a big mistake and could lose many votes in May. Sometimes in an election, even 1 vote can make a big difference.

So, my view is that unless there is real, truthful news don't mention it. I'm tired of seeing Breaking News on BBC when somebody's hat blows off.

Over and out , cocker.      Shame Dexter M  ended.

well, that's what i call the teddy leaving the pram.

Do you have any views on the subject or are you stuck with pram, rattle and other childish comments, Marky?

I've given my views now the grown-up thing to do is give your views.

I've a lot to do here so I'll check back later...much l8tr...lol.

whatsupdoc wrote:Do you have any views on the subject or are you stuck with pram, rattle and other childish comments, Marky?

I've given my views now the grown-up thing to do is give your views.

I've a lot to do here so I'll check back later...much l8tr...lol.

i have given my view. you didn't like it and made it personal. why? because people like you don't like being questioned. if there's a child in this exchange its you. you can check back whenever you're done doing whatever you do. i could care less.

Marky you are certainly a WUM. There was no call for that... a deliberate misreading of intention.

comperedna wrote:Marky you are certainly a WUM. There was no call for that... a deliberate misreading of intention.

nope, response in kind. gosh, some of you really don't like being stood up to do you?

Coo a reply in real time! For the record, Marky... I am in favour of disputation and argument, but that is NOT what you did. A perfectly sensible viewpoint was expressed by whatsupdoc and instead of refuting it, if you disagreed with it, you gave one of your irritating sneering responses, which did not put an opposing point of view from hers/his, but spoke of throwing teddies out of the pram. Normally I let such remarks pass unacknowledged, but today, having stripped down for soup the massive capon cooked for all of us by my son the amateur chef on Christmas Day, and already got tonight's supper sorted, I feel quite mellow and so inclined to protest for once at this behaviour.... which I believe adds nothing to the thread.

comperedna wrote:Coo a reply in real time! For the record, Marky... I am in favour of disputation and argument, but that is NOT what you did. A perfectly sensible viewpoint was expressed by whatsupdoc and instead of refuting it, if you disagreed with it, you gave one of your irritating sneering responses, which did not put an opposing point of view from hers/his, but spoke of throwing teddies out of the pram. Normally I let such remarks pass unacknowledged, but today, having stripped down for soup the massive capon cooked for all of us by my son the amateur chef on Christmas Day, and already got tonight's supper sorted, I feel quite mellow and so inclined to protest for once at this behaviour.... which I believe adds nothing to the thread.

your opinion to which you're entitled.

winjoy wrote:An update from Sonia Poulton regarding her upcoming documentary:

Best of luck to Sonia Poulton I say. I am very much looking forward to her documentary.

Thanks for that, Marky. For once I agree with you.

I'd like to extend my best wishes to journalist Sonia Poulton who has researched the evidence determined by Mr. Amaral and courageously is willing to make it as public as she can.