Re: Netflix probes Madeleine McCann disappearance in new documentary

by nglfi 17.03.19 6:20

I watched the first episode last night, and won't watch any more. I was disappointed but not surprised when in the opening few minutes, Jim Gamble's mug appeared on the screen. I thought ok, that's one, but let's keep watching and give it a fair chance. Then summers and swan pop up (extreme eyeroll). What a waste of an opportunity. Can't understand why the McCanns are so against this documentary.

by Verity 17.03.19 7:44

nglfi wrote:I watched the first episode last night, and won't watch any more. I was disappointed but not surprised when in the opening few minutes, Jim Gamble's mug appeared on the screen. I thought ok, that's one, but let's keep watching and give it a fair chance. Then summers and swan pop up (extreme eyeroll). What a waste of an opportunity. Can't understand why the McCanns are so against this documentary.

They're not, this film exonerates them to millions of people around the globe and even attempts to make sceptics question their own beliefs. winkwink

The series ends with Portugal being a haven for paedophiles, with Amaral allegedly fitting up the McCanns like he did with Cipriano (who murdered her own daughter and fed her to pigs, after having sex with her brother) to save PdL from a tourism crisis, and all because he allegedly misinterpreted the forensic results of the dogs, as corroborated by Sandra 'ask the dogs' Felguiras.

Job done McCanns.
No, they're not against this documentary, not in the least. They'll be drinks

in Rothley Towers after this.

Incidentally, Brian Kennedy said he paid for the private investigation, so why were the McCanns begging for money for the Fund? Silly question I suppose seeing as they had a huge mortgage and an extension on their house to pay for.

I would think Amaral will be furious, but what can he do since he obviously gave Netflix an interview.

by Verity 17.03.19 7:46

Harrowing theory why Gerry and Kate McCann became persons of interest when Maddie vanished

Tycoon Brian Kennedy made the shock new claim in Netflix documentary The Disappearance Of Madeleine McCann

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/gerry-kate-mccann-suspects-maddie-14144232?fbclid=IwAR2e7Qn-WGuy90u8JDDw2s9SqQtJbJed0_6ZxDbJo8p4sPPLP62rkAQZKsI

by Guest 17.03.19 7:57

Something to get us back into the correct mindset from Gemma O'Doherty
https://youtu.be/Ds6yw3f1Bmk

Apologies if posted elswhere

by Ladyinred 17.03.19 8:02

@ Verity Harrowing theory? To save Portugal's tourism trade lol

I'm no cop, but aren't close relatives usually initially suspects when a child is injured, missing or murdered (I'm not suggesting this is what happened).

BTW, Pulse Films made the "documentary" , not Netflix.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.03.19 8:05

Jill Havern wrote:
Hurry up Peter and Tony with your analysis...

I've very little to add.

There were some very good reviews in the Daily Telegraph, Guardian and other papers demolishing these 8 hours of film as cobbled together clips and interviews which added nothing to what we already know, and failed to come up with even one new 'angle on the case. Members here have by now said most of what could be said about this 'piece of work'.

Here, we know better and can see what it is: a cunningly prepared work of sinister propaganda, designed with just two purposes in mind;
1. To embed the abduction narrative ever more deeply in the minds of viewers, and
2. To make some money (or at least recoup some of the expense they made in producing this rubbish).

(Incidentally I wouldn't be surprised if one day we learnt that Netflix was PAID to produce this. It seems mighty odd that it was released just as Mark Saunokonoko's podcasts were beginning to gain some traction, though I doubt whether he is going to dig nearly as deep as Richard Hall has done).

I was amazed that @ princessleia had veered from believing the McCanns were involved in Madeleine's disappearance to being only '50/50'. That illustrates what a very powerful piece of propaganda this was.

Sandra Felgueiras gave us one of the most insightful moments in the past 12 years when she went head-on into the crux of the case: "How do you explain the cadaver dog's alerts?". She extracted some astonishing, awkward and embarrassed reactions from the McCanns. Her place at the top of the forum is fully justified.

I don't know how many members & guests remember this, but Sandra Felgueiras turned against Amaral & the PJ's conclusions many many years back.

It's interesting she claims Amaral misled her about the forensic report in September 2007, when the McCanns were declared official suspects, yet wasn't it around August 2008 (after the McCanns had been de-arguidoed), that she did her 'Ask the dogs, Sandra' interview? I think it was.

So why has she turned so vehemently against Amaral?

She is a youngish journalist. Talented. Brave even.

Did someone at the top of her TV company order her to make up stories about Amaral if she wanted to keep her job?

by sallypelt 17.03.19 9:22

Ladyinred wrote:@ Verity Harrowing theory? To save Portugal's tourism trade

I'm no cop, but aren't close relatives usually initially suspects when a child is injured, missing or murdered (I'm not suggesting this is what happened).

BTW, Pulse Films made the "documentary" , not Netflix.

Pulse Films? A company that is registered at New North Palace, London? It would be interesting to know just how close Pulse Films' office is to the Madeleine McCann's Fund Company this office is.

Another "coincidence"?

by Guest 17.03.19 10:28

I have the distinct feeling the McCanns and their friends colluded
with Netflix while saying they are having nothing to do with it.
Conspiracy anyone!!!???

by Verdi 17.03.19 11:47

Verity wrote:Harrowing theory why Gerry and Kate McCann became persons of interest when Maddie vanished

Tycoon Brian Kennedy made the shock new claim in Netflix documentary The Disappearance Of Madeleine McCann

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/gerry-kate-mccann-suspects-maddie-14144232?fbclid=IwAR2e7Qn-WGuy90u8JDDw2s9SqQtJbJed0_6ZxDbJo8p4sPPLP62rkAQZKsI

Harrowing theory why Gerry and Kate McCann became persons of interest when Maddie vanished

Tycoon Brian Kennedy made the shock new claim in Netflix documentary The Disappearance Of Madeleine McCann

By Mirror.co.uk - 16th March 2019

Netflix probes Madeleine McCann disappearance in new documentary - Page 9 0_Madeleine-McCann

Netflix probes Madeleine McCann disappearance in new documentary - Page 9 0_Madeleine-McCann

Portuguese authorities tried to frame Madeleine McCann's parents for her disappearance to save the country's tourism trade, it has been claimed.

The shock new theory, aired by tycoon Brian Kennedy, who has ploughed cash into helping Kate and Gerry find their missing daughter, comes as thousands watched eight part documentary The Disappearance Of Madeleine McCann.

Brian claimed the authorities had an incentive to make the couple scapegoats to rescue Portugal's ailing economy.

He claims authorities had reason to encourage the police to target the couple as persons of interest after three-year-old Maddie vanished in 2007.

Netflix probes Madeleine McCann disappearance in new documentary - Page 9 0_SWNS_MCCANN_ANNIVERSARY_22

Netflix probes Madeleine McCann disappearance in new documentary - Page 9 0_SWNS_MCCANN_ANNIVERSARY_22

Former rugby club owner Brian said: "You could understand how the mood of pubic opinion would go from sympathy to vilification.

"Lets find somebody to blame for this that doesn't make us look bad. I think it's all tied into tourism, industry and tourism being down and the country's GDP.

"It's much easier to say: 'Aha, we've found some idea later that the parents could be involved in this."

Netflix probes Madeleine McCann disappearance in new documentary - Page 9 0_madeleine-mccann-image-2-819750721

Netflix probes Madeleine McCann disappearance in new documentary - Page 9 0_madeleine-mccann-image-2-819750721

Brian, whose claims air in the Netflix documentary, helped fund the McCanns search for Maddie after she disappeared from their Pria Del Luz holiday apartment in the Algarve.

Speaking for the first time about his involvement he said he was convinced the couple weren't involved "within 12 seconds."

He described meeting the couple face to face after insisting on looking in their eyes before he donated any cash.

"They both looked like a wreck, after 12 seconds just reading the emotions everything told me 100per cent that this woman is genuine - she is a victim."

Netflix probes Madeleine McCann disappearance in new documentary - Page 9 0_Girl-missing-in-Algarve

Netflix probes Madeleine McCann disappearance in new documentary - Page 9 0_Girl-missing-in-Algarve

Brain knew the couple were innocent within 12 seconds (Image: PA)

Brian then funded private detectives, PR expert Clarance Mitchell [sic] and even flew to Morroco [sic] in a private jet himself to check out a sighting.

While detective agency Metodo 3 didn't find Maddie the documentary tells how information they uncovered busted 23-strong child sex gang.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/gerry-kate-mccann-suspects-maddie-14144232?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
...................................................................

ooops

Wrong Kennedy - what-a-mistaka-to-maka ! The intelligent tabloid #makesufinkdunnit.

What a turmoil this has created - again!

smokin

One good thing to come out of all this is that there is so much coming out in the press, nobody knows what's true and what isn't ....

Gerry McCann

by princessleia 17.03.19 12:06

I spoke to my mum this morning, she's not followed the case, knows bits a pieces that I've told her over the years but she's never really shown that much interest.

Anyway, to my surprise she watched all 8 episodes, she's not really a documentary fan, and I didn't think this was her kind of thing at all.

I expected her to say Madeleine was abducted, but she is convinced they are involved.

She said Brian Kennedy and his son are just thugs with money and connections.
She felt really sorry for Murat, Malinka and Amaral.
She felt the involvement of the Govt is bizarre, commenting that no one else has or ever will receive this kind of backing.
She thinks the dogs are amazing and this confirmed it for her.
She noted how the 'abductor' entered the patio doors but left through a small window - this would never happen especially that the McCann and friends were being watched.

I feel like I've been suckered in and allowed myself to be manipulated by this documentary....I should know better!

After speaking to my mum I have hope that people will see it for what it is. BS!

by kaz 17.03.19 12:25

HKP wrote:Something to get us back into the correct mindset from Gemma O'Doherty
https://youtu.be/Ds6yw3f1Bmk

Apologies if posted elswhere

In the beginning of this GO'D talks of a cover up in MMC's MURDER. Not manslaughter.
What does she know?
Apologies if this has already been discussed elsewhere but have been abroad for a while.

by Guest 17.03.19 12:40

kaz wrote:
HKP wrote:Something to get us back into the correct mindset from Gemma O'Doherty
https://youtu.be/Ds6yw3f1Bmk

Apologies if posted elswhere
In the beginning of this GO'D talks of a cover up in MMC's MURDER. Not manslaughter.
What does she know?
Apologies if this has already been discussed elsewhere but have been abroad for a while.

It says that video was published 5/9/19.

I think she has subconsciously said the 'm' word as she then goes on to say she has to be careful in what she says (too late Gemma!). She mensions a cover up at the highest level and includes the Met.
She strongly advised people to look at the alternative scenarios on the web and says there's some terrific videos on YouTube, when ask to point out any in particular she declines, just saying go find them. You only need to watch approximately 12 mins of the video as she then goes on about other stuff
Apologies if I have taken this thread off topic!

by Guest 17.03.19 12:53

Speaking for the first time about his involvement he said he was convinced the couple weren't involved "within 12 seconds."

Are they lodge "Brothers" ?
Most people with life experience these days understand how good a psychopath IS at manipulating others and pulling the wool over their eyes. I certainly would not judge someone in 12 seconds . . . particularly if I was going to invest a million quid in them or something (not that I have it!).
Gut instinct is good, always listen to it . . . But hard truths are the decider, in the end.

by Verity 17.03.19 16:36

Madeleine McCann's parents are 'furious' after retired detective repeats claim in new Netflix series that they put toddler's life at risk by publicising her distinctive eye mark

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6819265/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-furious-retired-detective-repeats-claim-life-risk.html?fbclid=IwAR1-Ooy07h-oIAl4Z9audJsn6TXi_cj6ifMLLIhaY3E1fmrBvepHLgl5bA8

Yeah, like this whole Netflix debacle wasn't about entrapment.

What's the betting Amaral will receive another legal letter. Didn't they say their lawyers would be watching?

by Verity 17.03.19 17:36

FAMILIAR CASE
What happened to Joana Cipriano in Portugal and why has it been compared to the Madeleine McCann case?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8656782/what-happened-to-joana-cipriano-in-portugal-and-why-has-it-been-compared-to-the-madeleine-mccann-case/

Another attack on Dr Amaral.

by Verdi 17.03.19 20:15

Tony Bennett wrote:I don't know how many members & guests remember this, but Sandra Felgueiras turned against Amaral & the PJ's conclusions many many years back.

I don't remember that Tony. Any chance you can give a clue where I might find something on the subject?.

Thanks thumbsup

by Verdi 17.03.19 20:23

Verity wrote:Another attack on Dr Amaral.

It was evident from the trailer alone that the Netflix thing was heading towards a Gonçalo Amaral assassination.

yes

by Verdi 17.03.19 20:52

Verity wrote:Madeleine McCann's parents are 'furious' after retired detective repeats claim in new Netflix series that they put toddler's life at risk by publicising her distinctive eye mark

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6819265/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-furious-retired-detective-repeats-claim-life-risk.html?fbclid=IwAR1-Ooy07h-oIAl4Z9audJsn6TXi_cj6ifMLLIhaY3E1fmrBvepHLgl5bA8

Yeah, like this whole Netflix debacle wasn't about entrapment.

What's the betting Amaral will receive another legal letter. Didn't they say their lawyers would be watching?

'We knew the abductor could do something to her eye, but it was a good marketing ploy'
Gerry McCann

by Pyrite 17.03.19 22:09

Tony Bennett wrote:
Jill Havern wrote:
Hurry up Peter and Tony with your analysis..

Sandra Felgueiras gave us one of the most insightful moments in the past 12 years when she went head-on into the crux of the case: "How do you explain the cadaver dog's alerts?". She extracted some astonishing, awkward and embarrassed reactions from the McCanns. Her place at the top of the forum is fully justified.

I don't know how many members & guests remember this, but Sandra Felgueiras turned against Amaral & the PJ's conclusions many many years back.

It's interesting she claims Amaral misled her about the forensic report in September 2007, when the McCanns were declared official suspects, yet wasn't it around August 2008 (after the McCanns had been de-arguidoed), that she did her 'Ask the dogs, Sandra' interview? I think it was.

So why has she turned so vehemently against Amaral?

She is a youngish journalist. Talented. Brave even.

Did someone at the top of her TV company order her to make up stories about Amaral if she wanted to keep her job?

Did I miss something? I don't remember SF blaming GA for anything. She stated "her sources" inside the PJ lied to her but I don't remember her naming GA at all.

She was a young reporter putting the correct questions to the McCanns and to me it looks like she felt let down by the inside info she was given regarding the DNA evidence - which she believed was going to be the nail in the coffin. Then when it wasn't, its understandable the way she felt esp after going on TV and stating almost as much.

I don't think she was bought off, some things are more costly like personal pride and integrity. IDK of course but to me she seems to be a person that values these things more than money.

The only question here is as you've pointed out, the timing of the "ask the dogs" interview but even then, she could well have still been smarting about the DNA but unwilling to change her mind at that point.

EP 3-4 felt promising, but then came "The Fightback" which was expected but for me there are still way too many unanswered questions - the same amount there was before this documentary!

Its healthy to question things - based on new evidence. The thing is, there isn't any in this documentary, just moral supposition and opinion that can and does pull on the heartstrings.

by Guest 17.03.19 22:10

Vanity Fair - Feb 2008 wrote:Although initially reluctant, the McCanns finally informed the media of Madeleine’s unique right eye—a risky revelation. Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.
Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/02/mccanns200802?currentPage=5

They can sue away.

Sue Vanity Fair.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.03.19 0:14

Verdi wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:I don't know how many members & guests remember this, but Sandra Felgueiras turned against Amaral & the PJ's conclusions many many years back.

I don't remember that Tony. Any chance you can give a clue where I might find something on the subject?.

Thanks

It was years ago @Verdi.

I remember it well. She was basically supporting the abduction as if it was fact. IIRC she made some comment about the PJ having jumped to conclusions, or similar. It was in an interview, or a newspaper article, maybe on a video. I've spent some time looking for it but can't turn it up for the moment.

However. she did NOT at the time say anything about being given false information by the PJ or Amaral nor did she say anything about being given only part of a forensic report etc. etc.

To suddenly bring this up 12 years later is IMO more than a tad suspicious and tends to confirm my view (due respect to you @Pyrite and welcome back) that she was 'influenced' to change tack. And of course Goncalo Amaral vehemently denies the accusation.

This Netflix production was a thoroughly dishonest piece of work - just like the BBC Crimewatch Show in 2013.

by Verdi 18.03.19 0:20

Tony wrote:This Netflix production was a thoroughly dishonest piece of work - just like the BBC Crimewatch Show in 2013.

Amen !!!

I haven't found anything yet but will continue looking. I'm beginning to think you can't trust one single person. How sad.

by Ladyinred 18.03.19 6:46

Jim Gamble currently discussing the doc with Nicky Campbell on Breakfast, Radio 5 Live - both supportive of parents, liked the programmes. JG feels it makes a positive contribution to understanding the case, meticulously made, M is still alive, parents made a terrible mistake, initially suspected Gerry, stop spewing bile online and think of the twins etc.

by plebgate 18.03.19 7:43

Ladyinred wrote:Jim Gamble currently discussing the doc with Nicky Campbell on Breakfast, Radio 5 Live - both supportive of parents, liked the programmes. JG feels it makes a positive contribution to understanding the case, meticulously made, M is still alive, parents made a terrible mistake, initially suspected Gerry, stop spewing bile online and think of the twins etc.

All these people who say Maddie is alive please show evidence to support this. As for thinking of the twins, shouldn't they also think of the twins before they speak.    The twins have been told an abductor took her.   They are old enough now to understand what would and could still be happening to Maddie if indeed she is alive.

Why such an attack on Rocky now?    Is something brewing.

Why doesn't anyone ever mention the SCR?

Sue Rocky, they wont get anywhere.    As bluebag has pointed out, it was printed in Vanity Fair and those words would be used as evidence in support of Rocky should they sue I believe.

Were the participants paid by the production company?