Re: Sonia Poulton on Murdoch's SKY News AGAIN - today (4 April 2015)

by Joss 10.04.15 11:09

BlueBag wrote:
Joss wrote:Maybe Sky gave her a job to shut her up and to not air her scheduled programme?

But... that smacks of corruption.

I'm sure Murdoch Inc wouldn't go that far.

by **PeterMac** 10.04.15 15:37

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by aiyoyo 11.04.15 12:20

BlueBag wrote:
Joss wrote:Maybe Sky gave her a job to shut her up and to not air her scheduled programme?

But... that smacks of corruption.

I'm sure Murdoch Inc wouldn't go that far.

Why not? His track records tell a story.

Shouldn't the question be - is SP stupid enough not to have realized it (that she has been used)?

Given a job without being given some sort of out front payment to cover expenses, and without being given a completion deadline, are all indications they are not serious about wanting the job done or wanting to air it. It's like a someone preparing a contingency plan if you like.....

Nuh......I don't think it's sky that has commissioned her.
If it is, don't expect anything of value on the finished product after the editing.
It's not in Sky's interest or corporate culture to produce that kind of documentary, especially since it will deviate from their usual stance.

Unless on a worst scenario - Sky commissioned her to do it, intending to use it to influence the public for just in case the BL's Inquest has not gone their way. But since they got away without any adverse consequence, the documentary is rendered redundant, and no longer need to be aired.

From all that hives from SP pre Inquest to sudden total silence post Inquest is a tad strange....
Even her betsy mate RH is keeping numb about it. You'd think she would want her ~~farcical~~ sacrifice in the Sun not to be for nothing.

Time will tell.

by LG 12.04.15 14:07

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **PeterMac** 12.04.15 14:24

At least she has not faded away, like T42 did
If you are reading this Sonia - Good luck. We cant wait to see what you have "turned up"

Lord Laffin @em ‏@veniviedivici 4h4 hours ago
@SoniaPoulton What's happening with the docu ? #sweepyface #McCann

Professor Wakeford ‏@ProfWakeford 4h4 hours ago
@veniviedivici @SoniaPoulton I have requested an update as well this very morning. #mccann

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton 4h4 hours ago
@ProfWakeford @veniviedivici good morning to you both. Am not on Twitter much as we're at end stages of filming. Will release update soon.

Lord Laffin @em ‏@veniviedivici 4h4 hours ago
@SoniaPoulton @ProfWakeford OK, thanks.

Sonia Poulton
‏@SoniaPoulton
@veniviedivici @ProfWakeford welcome. I can tell you this. We have discovered that 'no stone unturned' could not be further from reality.

by aiyoyo 12.04.15 14:41

Sonia Poulton
‏@SoniaPoulton
@veniviedivici @ProfWakeford welcome. I can tell you this. We have discovered that 'no stone unturned' could not be further from reality.

____________________

Oh wow !

Can't wait to see what she has uncovered.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.04.15 14:58

aiyoyo wrote:Sonia Poulton
‏@SoniaPoulton
@veniviedivici @ProfWakeford welcome. I can tell you this. We have discovered that 'no stone unturned' could not be further from reality.

Well, Det Chief Supt Andy Redwood said much the same thing.

Who remembers this sonorous, pompous phrase uttered by ~~puppet~~ journalist Matthew Amroliwala on the notorious BBC Crimewatch McCann show in October 2013?

"This man [Tannerman sketch shown] was widely thought to have been Madeleine’s abductor, but the team was taking nothing for granted".

Well, Redwood certainly went looking under stones...

...and under one of them, Lo and behold! - he found Crecheman.

I'm hoping Poulton will turn over the right stones

by lj 12.04.15 17:04

Call me a pessimist, but I doubt if she turns on some right stones MSM will give her any attention.

by **PeterMac** 12.04.15 22:30

Tony Bennett wrote:
Well, Redwood certainly went looking under stones...
...and under one of them, Lo and behold! - he found Crecheman.

He also took ground penetrating radar, a helicopter, teams of SY's finest, forensic anthropologists, no fewer than FOUR cadaver dogs,
looked under lots of stones, and found

A sock !

Or so it was reported . . . . . . . !

by **Tony Bennett** 12.04.15 22:42

PeterMac wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Well, Redwood certainly went looking under stones...
...and under one of them, Lo and behold! - he found Crecheman.
He also took ground penetrating radar, a helicopter, teams of SY's finest, forensic anthropologists, no fewer than FOUR cadaver dogs,
looked under lots of stones, and found

A sock !

Or so it was reported . . . . . . . !

You forgot the rabbit bones he found

by aiyoyo 12.04.15 23:00

Tony Bennett wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Well, Redwood certainly went looking under stones...
...and under one of them, Lo and behold! - he found Crecheman.
He also took ground penetrating radar, a helicopter, teams of SY's finest, forensic anthropologists, no fewer than FOUR cadaver dogs,
looked under lots of stones, and found

A sock !

Or so it was reported . . . . . . . !
You forgot the rabbit bones he found

Evidently not looking for an alive Madeleine !
Reminds me of the lake dredge by Marcos Aragao Correia (on tip off from underworld big brother) where only animal bones were found. Wonder who tipped off Redwood? Not another Mr underworld you'd have thought. But he would have relied on gathered intelligence or tip off intelligence nonetheless.....

by **Tony Bennett** 14.04.15 12:54

On the face of it, this tweet this morning from Sonoia Poulton looks promising...

Sonia Poulton 1hr 52 min

‏@SoniaPoulton @Papa___Rico @ProfWakeford

6 months in the making, unique footage, first hand accounts - I am proud of our team but it's taken toll. TY.

Wow! That is quite a promise!

'First-hand accounts'...there's no mistaking a promise like that.

Now let me think...

Dr Kate McCann?

Dr Gerald McCann?

Dr David Payne?

Jane Tanner?

Any Tierney?

Catriona Baker?

Charlotte Pennington?

Goncalo Amaral?

Martin Grime?

Robert Murat?

Gary Hagland?

Antonio Giminez Raso?

Kevin Halligen?

Henri Exton?

Crecheman?

Martin Smith?

Wojcek Krokowski?

by plebgate 14.04.15 18:35

Interesting tweet but still no date as to when it is to be released.

by TheTruthWillOut 14.04.15 18:57

plebgate wrote:Interesting tweet but still no date as to when it is to be released.

Most likely because nobody in the MSM have bitten as yet?

I've looked at the Radio Times listings and there is nothing in the 7PM-9PM slot upto 25th April. Also had a quick look at the major TV stations documentary sections and haven't come up with anything yet.

If SP doesn't get any/much mainstream coverage about this doc, I fear it will have little impact. Even if the content is dynamite.

MSM have no real excuse ("on-going investigation" ect..) to not report any facts that may be revealed in the doc though. See the MWT Dando investigation to name one.

by NickE 14.04.15 19:58

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]@RosalindaHu [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Interesting and productive afternoon with Sonia and her film crew :)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by HelenMeg 14.04.15 20:12

What I have a problem with is that both of the above still seem to promote that McCanns neglected their children night after night - which is a myth that the Mc Cann Team want everyone to believe.

by **Tony Bennett** 14.04.15 20:15

NickE wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"You saw what we did together to produce that fabulous article in the Sun, with Rosalinda portrayed as the 'anti-McCann bitch who gets a buzz out of attacking other people on the internet".

"Just you wait and see what the two of us are cooking up for you all next time!

"See you in the Sun and on SKY sometime soon - Byeeee!"

by NickE 14.04.15 20:19

HelenMeg wrote:What I have a problem with is that both of the above still seem to promote that McCanns neglected their children night after night - which is a myth that the Mc Cann Team want everyone to believe.

by **sharonl** 14.04.15 21:02

NickE wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:What I have a problem with is that both of the above still seem to promote that McCanns neglected their children night after night - which is a myth that the Mc Cann Team want everyone to believe.

IMO

Team McCann (accused of staging an abduction), also went to an awful lot of trouble to convince us that May 3rd was the actual date of Madeleine's disappearance. Unfortunately, many have fallen for this, including the PJ, and therefore, not enough attention was paid to the McCanns activities on the previous days.

Is there really any credible and verifiable evidence to suggest that Madeleine was around after April 29th?

If I am correct, and they had lost Madeleine earlier in the holiday, what are the chances that they would risk leaving the other children unattended for any period of time?

by **Tony Bennett** 14.04.15 21:11

HelenMeg wrote:What I have a problem with is that both of the above still seem to promote that McCanns neglected their children night after night - which is a myth that the McCann Team want everyone to believe.

@ HelenMeg

This hadn't occurred to me - and it is a very important point indeed, given what we have been promised.

In fact, just reflecting on a few things, I am wondering how long Hutton & Poulton have known each other and whether they are planning and participating in a very deep game that might end up as an even worse disaster than some of us have feared.

I have checked Sonia Poulton's utterings quite often in the past year and I concede that she refers to the neglect issue but nothing else.

As for Hutton, this does appear to be true also, indeed in the course of her many ramblings on the McCann case, she is surprisingly obtuse - to the point of being deliberately evasive, I would argue - in her analysis of the facts of the case.

Here are a few of Hutton's past posts to sample:

1. First-ever post of substance on the McCann case, 17 July 2012, 'Madeleine McCann'

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This is real life however, and in real life, detectives rarely, if ever, solve homicides and missing people cases within 60 my gut feeling is, that the [McCanns] and their friends, should get themselves ruled out as suspects once and for allminutes, or during an ad break. I have made up my own mind, based on the evidence that exists, though I am always open to persuasion either way, but . I think this would have been hugely beneficial to the morale and enthusiasm for their search.

2. "I'm not a bleddy hater, Lorraine" - October 2013

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

They have accepted, without question, the word of parents who admitted they left their children alone, almost every night of their holiday, even when their oldest child asked them why they didn't come to herself and her brother when they cried. As heartbreaking as that is, the parents then went out again, and that child is missing, probably dead. Are these commentators aware that on May 1st Madeleine cried non stop for over an hour, sobbing and screaming inbetween? Are they aware of the distress of the elderly lady in the apartment upstairs, hearing this child cry and being unable to do anything? Are they holding their hands over their ears and saying 'that's horrid, I'm not listening'?

They are accepting, on the word of two former suspects, that experienced detective Goncalo Amaral and the Portuguese police who investigated Madeleine's disappearance are incompetent and corrupt, as too are the officials who run the Judiciary. The final report does not say the parents are innocent, the final report says they lost the opportunity to prove their innocence. Kate refused to answer police questions and the entire group refused to return for a reconstruction.

Of course among the McCann watchers, there will be gloaters inevitable in a case such as this. Gloaters for non Blackadder fans, are people who crowd around to gloat at others' misfortunes. The McCanns did of course give all of us an opportunity to pat ourselves on the backs, because unlike the good doctors, we would never have left our tiny children on their own to go out to dinner, so we are better than them. However, those who wanted to say that, got it out of their system long ago.

Now the hot news is a Gerry lookalike wandering around PDL at 10pm with a Madeleine lookalike. I could have tripled the length of that last sentence by stating it couldn't possibly be him, but I couldn't bring myself to type it. Of course, my omission will lay me open to all sorts of hate mail, but, seriously, what are the chances of Gerry having a doppelganger in PDL, out and about enjoying the night air at the same time as himself, and making off with a child who looked exactly like Madeleine? They even had matching chinos with buttons down the side. Spooky huh? I say the aforementioned with trepidation, because I fear a future where questioning the McCanns will lead straight to jail without passing Go.

[ NOTE from TB: The bit in red is of especial interest to me, given the fury with which she attacked me for doubting that the Smiths had seen Gerry McCann or that the Smith sighting was genuine. Indeed, she insisted that by casting doubt on the Smith sighting, I had ruined the chances of a fair trial, by undermining - she said - the palpably genuine evidence of the Smiths ]

3. WTF moments: No odd behaviour that night - April 2015

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Whilst establishing that Madeleine had been abducted, the McCann Media Machine also established that the parents didn't do anything wrong. Leaving babies alone while you go out to dine is the British way apparently. Legal advice was quickly sought and obtained by the parents, checking on the children every half hour fell well within the bounds of responsible parenting. Thousands of people they said, had contacted them to reassure them that they do exactly the same, even dopey sofa Queens, alarmingly, said they too, had done this, so they couldn't be more sympathetic.

4. WTF Moments Part II: Blame the Police - April 2015

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

(Another recent blog emphasisng the 'neglect by leaving the children alone' angle)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thus, this film is being made by two people who share the view that the McCanns are culpable for leaving their children on their own, so allowing an abductor to snatch Madeleine.

It is being made by someone who used her time on David Icke's 'People's TV' channel to interview three people only on the Madeleine McCann case: Stephen D. Birch, conspiracy fantasist and now-registered sex offender, barrister Michael Shrimpton, and Hutton.

It is being made by someone who deliberately arranged for Hutton to be interviewed (and paid?) by the Sun for a terrible two-page article representing 'anti-McCanns' as vile haters - and who appears on the SKY News sofa every month or so.

And as 'Ladyinred wrote on another thread:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"I wonder if Bannerman is an acquaintance of Rosalinda Hutton. He's wearing a WTF T-shirt and she's currently writing a series of blogs entitled, WTF Moments. She's also involved with the child abuse campaign. I'd bet that [Poulton] was filming the demo".

...I agree that it is something of a coincidence, to say the least, that Hutton begins to write a series of 'WTF' articles, just as 'Bannerman' appears with a 'WTF' T-shirt.

The omens IMO are really not looking good - but good luck to anyone who's still optimistic about Poulton's promised film

by Carrry On Doctor 14.04.15 22:01

sharonl wrote:
NickE wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:What I have a problem with is that both of the above still seem to promote that McCanns neglected their children night after night - which is a myth that the Mc Cann Team want everyone to believe.

IMO

Team McCann (accused of staging an abduction), also went to an awful lot of trouble to convince us that May 3rd was the actual date of Madeleine's disappearance. Unfortunately, many have fallen for this, including the PJ, and therefore, not enough attention was paid to the McCanns activities on the previous days.

Is there really any credible and verifiable evidence to suggest that Madeleine was around after April 29th?

If I am correct, and they had lost Madeleine earlier in the holiday, what are the chances that they would risk leaving the other children unattended for any period of time?

Sharoni, this specific question was asked on Textusa blog several days ago. Textusa responds and is of the opinion that death occurred early evening on the 3rd, which is the same opinion as GA, whom I have not aware has changed his stance. Personally, I am with you - 29/30 April.

Helenmeg, I think you were asked this a few days ago by TB but I am not sure I have seen your response. I really respect your views so please point me in the right direction if I have missed something.

I think this issue is pivotal to solving what happened. Open to all opinions/arguments as always.

All of the above IMO

by **Tony Bennett** 14.04.15 22:27

Carrry On Doctor wrote:
HelenMeg, I think you were asked this [why you think Madeleine died on the evening of 3 May] a few days ago by TB but I am not sure I have seen your response. I really respect your views so please point me in the right direction if I have missed something.

Just to be clear, it was back on 15 March, a month ago, that I asked HelenMeg if she would be able to explain her reasons, and the same day she replied as follows:

"Not ignoring - just not getting more than 5 mins to respond...hope to have more time later - although I only have opinions and beliefs based on what I read and think logical - I don't have evidence as such..."

I don't think she's replied yet.

Reference has been made to others who also share the view that Madeleine died some time in the very late afternnon or early evening of 3 May, a theory I find impossible to accept.

Most of those who support this theory agree I think with Dr Amaral who felt sure that the nanny who siad she had 'high tea' with Madeleine and her parents at around 5.30pm on 3 May was telling the truth.

In terms of the better-known people whose view is that Madeleine died late afternoon/early evening on 3 May, they include:

* Dr Goncalo Amaral
* Pat Brown and
* Textusa.

Also, if I am not mistaken, Johanna Renstein ('Unterdenteppichgekehrt').

Apologies if I've missed anyone significant out of that shortl list.

I was just asking for the specific reasons why anyone believes this to be true - do they simply follow Amaral on this? -or do they have other reasons for their belief?

by HelenMeg 14.04.15 22:29

Hi Carry on Doctor

I am now a firm believer that death occurred on the evening of 3rd May, in accordance with Amaral's views.... For a long while I did wonder if it could 've occurred much earlier in the week... but I now believe this is yet another myth that Team Mc Cann would like us to discuss and believe.

Textusa explains very well the reasons for not believing in an earlier time of death - (in her response to a comment on her blogsite) - I hope she wont mind me copying it here. I think Team Mc Cann are very happy that we spend time discussing substitute theories and death occurring on Sunday / Monday...

We do not go for death before 3rd because existing evidence points otherwise.

Hastily changed timelines, conflicting statements Gerry and Kate's attitudes suggest a panicky response on the night (if planned, would they not be actively participating in bogus search, being themselves the first to convince others to play along?)

The mistakes made, window, pointing to wrong bed, no sheets on the cots, sedated twins show that they were reacting rather than acting.

What was the gain in waiting? To get their act together? It seems they didn't make any good use of that time. Not even to get a big round table to show where they sat at.

Don't the retrofit stories you allege prove the exact opposite? If they did have the time to think things through, why the need to retrofit the thought out story?

What about Philip Edmonds letter about Maddie being in playground on May 3rd He states clearly he photographed Maddie. Is Edmonds a liar? We think he was telling the truth.

Is it because of the créche sheets (evidently as fake as the Tapas reservation sheets) have doubtful handwritings? Those sheets have a purpose and it wasn't to show that Maddie was or wasn't there.

Is it because of the last picture being evidently photoshopped? And the photoshopping of other pictures? And that proves what? For us it proves that they were desperate in showing a family time that did not exist. They were not there to take family pics, so they didn't have them. But to justify a "family holiday" they had to produce some, didn't they? Aren't the ones known too few for a week's holiday? We think they are, but to photoshop takes time and effort and it's not as easy as taking a picture, is it?

We are not persuaded by early death theories based on pre-planning, premeditated murder and substitute child - the one who has been named, has been so without ANY no supporting evidence the child was ever present. A terrible way to involve a real child in a totally unbelievable scenario.

We do not fall for the myth that all blonde-girls look alike. That is as stupid and xenophobic as saying that all Chinese or all black people look alike. We challenge people to google up a pic of a 4 yr old blonde girl we would confuse with Maddie.

And did sub-girl have a coloboma (or significant "fleck" in her eye as per late mind changing of her parents about the illness)? The picture on the cover of Kate's book shows clearly a girl with a very significant mark on her eye which would make inevitably anyone looking at her notice it.

Please understand why death before the third exists.

It benefits only one person.

All others (guests, Ocean Club and nannies) are "thrown" from participants who were caught up in events and complied lie so as to "confirm" a scenario that was condemning to the T9 into being active participants who acted in a disgusting and sick play in roles they accepted for days to be a part of.

This said, we inform we will not get into any debate on the sub child theory. We think we have sufficiently justified why we won't.

by TheTruthWillOut 14.04.15 22:37

It is certainly hard to argue with TextUSA whoever they are.

I hope very soon they do a post about the why all these people were convinced to accept roles in this "play".

by HelenMeg 14.04.15 22:39

I think if they had had 2 or 3 days to plan - things would have gone rather more smoothly.

But a key reason for me, indicating that death had only just occurred, was Kate's appearance as Gerry made the public statement for the media on the 4th May. She was in a grey T shirt. She was
visibly distraught - the only time I have seen proper raw emotion. It wasnt contrived - I dont believe it was acting - it was the face and look of someone who was going through great trauma at having just lost her child.
It was raw. Whatever had happened - had happened very very recently.. IMO.

and I'm sorry I hadn't responded sooner to Tony's question.. I work and have been away for a while and just hadnt revisited the thread. Apologies.

But going back to Sonia et Cristobell.. I do find it odd that they have not moved past the 'Neglect'...most people by now understand that 'neglect' was necessary to enable an abduction to take place. To be called neglectful suited their purposes very well. Why oh why do Sonia and Cristobell push neglect?

by **Tony Bennett** 14.04.15 22:47

Thank you for posting your views @ HelenMeg, which I think can be summed up as an amalgam of the views of Dr Goncalo Amaral and 'Textusa'.

I do have these comments on 'Textusa's views:

+++++++++++++++++++++

Textusa: Gerry and Kate's...panicky response on the night...

REPLY: If, for the sake of argument, and speaking in general terms, any couple were simulating an abduction following a death, as suggested by Amaral in this case, I suggest they would be very nervous or panicky, whether the death of their child had occurred 4 hours or 4 days beforehand. I accept though that if it was 4 hours, the degree of panic would be much greater.
.
Textusa: What about Philip Edmonds' letter about Maddie being in playground on May 3rd? He states clearly he photographed Maddie. Is Edmonds a liar? We think he was telling the truth.

REPLY: I don't. Of all the claimed evidence that Madeleine was alive on 3rd May, that must surely be the weakest line of evidence?

Textusa: Is it because of the last picture being evidently photoshopped?

REPLY: I do not agree that the 'Last Photo' was photoshopped.

Textusa: We are not persuaded by early death theories based on pre-planning, premeditated murder and substitute child -

REPLY: On that specific point, I am in full agreement with Textusa.

by Laura Youngson 15.04.15 6:51

Quote Textusa:

Please understand why death before the third exists.

It benefits only one person.

All others (guests, Ocean Club and nannies) are "thrown" from participants who were caught up in events and complied lie so as to "confirm" a scenario that was condemning to the T9 into being active participants who acted in a disgusting and sick play in roles they accepted for days to be a part of.

This quote from Textusa for me makes me agree that death occurred on 3rd May. Why would everyone involved lie if death occurred a few days before? I mean, just look at how many people would have to lie and agree to 'act in a disgusting and sick play......'

TB, is it possible that you have been thrown off the scent by believing death occurred earlier in the week because you are of the belief that pretty much everyone is lying.

She also says death before the 3rd benefits only one person - does she mean Gerry? Why not Kate aswell?

by Guest 15.04.15 7:19

She may have died on the 3rd, but the process might have started earlier and she was poorly for a few days.

I still think Tuesday night had something to do with it.

Sheets being washed is a clue.

Cleaned apartment.

Imagine a group of Doctors on the pish not giving proper medical attention to a sick child (sick for a reason that might be another issue).

by Guest 15.04.15 7:23

The "last photo" (not) taken on 3rd?

by **sharonl** 15.04.15 7:35

The McCanns own behaviour may be a clue to the actual date of Madeleine's disappearance.

1. Kate and Gerry leaving and entering by different doors (not wanting to be seen as a family of only 4?)
2. No longer eating breakfast out?
3. Taking lunch in their own apartment whilst the rest of the group ate on the Paynes' balcony

That's just for starters, more later