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

by **Tony Bennett** 15.04.15 9:54

Laura Youngson wrote:TB, is it possible that you have been thrown off the scent

REPLY: Unlike Eddie & Keela

by believing death occurred earlier in the week because you are of the belief that pretty much everyone is lying.

REPLY: All that I am prepared to say on this issue is that everyone should examine very thoroughly all that is said about Madeleine being alive on 3rd May

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

REPLY: No idea. It's far too cryptic for me

by Carrry On Doctor 15.04.15 10:01

Thank you HelenMeg, you/Textusa/others could well be right.

Going a step further then, Textusa is a firm advocate of the swinging being the reason for the cover up involving so many.

For me, the lack of photos featuring MBM by any of the group is very bizarre given that it was a family (and significantly) a group holiday. I would have expected literally hundreds of photos to have been produced for the PJ, even if the adults did 'entertain' themselves at other times.

So, if we agree with Textusa about death on the 3rd, do we also subscribe to the swinging theory as the correct backdrop to the week, and why would that explain the lack of photos ?

Just asking opinion.

All of the above IMO

by Knitted 15.04.15 13:48

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Snipped

So, if we agree with Textusa about death on the 3rd, do we also subscribe to the swinging theory as the correct backdrop to the week, and why would that explain the lack of photos ?

The 'Last Photo' appears impossible to have been taken on the date/time stated, (as demonstrated by the checkable facts of the weather and of the calculated sun position/shadow length). Thus its exif data has been changed for a reason. If Madeleine was alive on the 3rd then either a photo would exist, or the McCanns could simply say "we were having too much fun and/or we're not really a family that takes lots of photos so we haven't got one of her last day". So the very strong likelihood of a falsifying the exif data to create a 'Last Photo' is a big red flag.

Any proposed scenarios therefore have to satisfactorily explain why a falsified date/time on a 'Last Photo' was necessary.

As for swinging... this is the 21st C. I appreciate that in some parts of the USA, with its unusual (at lest for the West) high levels of religiosity and many States nurturing fundamentalist mindsets and attitudes, swinging may create waves of 'shock and horror'... but this is Europe. Is swinging a big deal? Nope! Is it a big deal sufficient enough for members of the T9 to get embroiled in the cover-up of a dead child? Most definitely not! Swinging may have made the News of the World in the 1970s, but it's no more than minor 'gossip' nowadays.

The reason for any cover up has to go much further than 'swinging', which is after all consensual sex between adults and neither illegal nor newsworthy.

by Lands_end 15.04.15 15:09

Knitted wrote:
Carrry On Doctor wrote:Snipped

So, if we agree with Textusa about death on the 3rd, do we also subscribe to the swinging theory as the correct backdrop to the week, and why would that explain the lack of photos ?
The 'Last Photo' appears impossible to have been taken on the date/time stated, (as demonstrated by the checkable facts of the weather and of the calculated sun position/shadow length). Thus its exif data has been changed for a reason. If Madeleine was alive on the 3rd then either a photo would exist, or the McCanns could simply say "we were having too much fun and/or we're not really a family that takes lots of photos so we haven't got one of her last day". So the very strong likelihood of a falsifying the exif data to create a 'Last Photo' is a big red flag.

Any proposed scenarios therefore have to satisfactorily explain why a falsified date/time on a 'Last Photo' was necessary.

As for swinging... this is the 21st C. I appreciate that in some parts of the USA, with its unusual (at lest for the West) high levels of religiosity and many States nurturing fundamentalist mindsets and attitudes, swinging may create waves of 'shock and horror'... but this is Europe. Is swinging a big deal? Nope! Is it a big deal sufficient enough for members of the T9 to get embroiled in the cover-up of a dead child? Most definitely not! Swinging may have made the News of the World in the 1970s, but it's no more than minor 'gossip' nowadays.

The reason for any cover up has to go much further than 'swinging', which is after all consensual sex between adults and neither illegal nor newsworthy.

If they were "swinging" as you put it then it was alluded to in their rogotary interviews. However, there are additional parts of "swinging" that don't bear thinking about. You would gasp in horror if ever mentioned so I won't.

by Knitted 15.04.15 15:24

Lands_end wrote:
Knitted wrote:
Carrry On Doctor wrote:Snipped

So, if we agree with Textusa about death on the 3rd, do we also subscribe to the swinging theory as the correct backdrop to the week, and why would that explain the lack of photos ?
Snipped

As for swinging... this is the 21st C. I appreciate that in some parts of the USA, with its unusual (at lest for the West) high levels of religiosity and many States nurturing fundamentalist mindsets and attitudes, swinging may create waves of 'shock and horror'... but this is Europe. Is swinging a big deal? Nope! Is it a big deal sufficient enough for members of the T9 to get embroiled in the cover-up of a dead child? Most definitely not! Swinging may have made the News of the World in the 1970s, but it's no more than minor 'gossip' nowadays.

The reason for any cover up has to go much further than 'swinging', which is after all consensual sex between adults and neither illegal nor newsworthy.
If they were "swinging" as you put it then it was alluded to in their rogotary interviews. However, there are additional parts of "swinging" that don't bear thinking about. You would gasp in horror if ever mentioned so I won't.

Whether they were swingers or not isn't the point I am making.

The point I am making is that if they were, then I struggle to see why members of the T9 group would all consider that being known as swingers would justify covering up the death of a child. Being known as a swinger would not cost them their jobs, it would not lead to anything more adverse than a few sniggers from closed minded work colleagues, (who presumably wouldn't be their friends anyway)...and given a few weeks or months it'll be old gossip anyway. So, being a swinger, (and they may well have all been... big deal!), does not appear to be sufficient grounds to become embroiled in a cover up of the death of a child and the subsequent disposal of a corpse.

I doubt very much you could make me gasp. I like a bit of juicy gossip as much as the next person, but what a group of consenting adults get up to is not a cause for concern, and neither should it really be the concern of anyone else considering all that is wrong with the world.

If, however, what went on involved children, or non-consensual sex, then it is no longer swinging and in that case, there would be grounds for becoming embroiled in a cover up.

by Lands_end 15.04.15 15:38

Knitted wrote:
Lands_end wrote:
Knitted wrote:
Carrry On Doctor wrote:Snipped

So, if we agree with Textusa about death on the 3rd, do we also subscribe to the swinging theory as the correct backdrop to the week, and why would that explain the lack of photos ?
Snipped

As for swinging... this is the 21st C. I appreciate that in some parts of the USA, with its unusual (at lest for the West) high levels of religiosity and many States nurturing fundamentalist mindsets and attitudes, swinging may create waves of 'shock and horror'... but this is Europe. Is swinging a big deal? Nope! Is it a big deal sufficient enough for members of the T9 to get embroiled in the cover-up of a dead child? Most definitely not! Swinging may have made the News of the World in the 1970s, but it's no more than minor 'gossip' nowadays.

The reason for any cover up has to go much further than 'swinging', which is after all consensual sex between adults and neither illegal nor newsworthy.
If they were "swinging" as you put it then it was alluded to in their rogotary interviews. However, there are additional parts of "swinging" that don't bear thinking about. You would gasp in horror if ever mentioned so I won't.
Whether they were swingers or not isn't the point I am making.

The point I am making is that if they were, then I struggle to see why members of the T9 group would all consider that being known as swingers would justify covering up the death of a child. Being known as a swinger would not cost them their jobs, it would not lead to anything more adverse than a few sniggers from closed minded work colleagues, (who presumably wouldn't be their friends anyway)...and given a few weeks or months it'll be old gossip anyway. So, being a swinger, (and they may well have all been... big deal!), does not appear to be sufficient grounds to become embroiled in a cover up of the death of a child and the subsequent disposal of a corpse.

I doubt very much you could make me gasp. I like a bit of juicy gossip as much as the next person, but what a group of consenting adults get up to is not a cause for concern, and neither should it really be the concern of anyone else considering all that is wrong with the world.

If, however, what went on involved children, or non-consensual sex, then it is no longer swinging and in that case, there would be grounds for becoming embroiled in a cover up.

Nail on the head knitted. No gasping necessary as you said.

by Guest 15.04.15 15:52

There's no evidence for swinging and people should refrain from speculating about it unless there is.

Keep asking questions about the facts and you can't get done.

by j.rob 15.04.15 16:12

Knitted wrote:
Lands_end wrote:
Knitted wrote:
Carrry On Doctor wrote:Snipped

So, if we agree with Textusa about death on the 3rd, do we also subscribe to the swinging theory as the correct backdrop to the week, and why would that explain the lack of photos ?
Snipped

As for swinging... this is the 21st C. I appreciate that in some parts of the USA, with its unusual (at lest for the West) high levels of religiosity and many States nurturing fundamentalist mindsets and attitudes, swinging may create waves of 'shock and horror'... but this is Europe. Is swinging a big deal? Nope! Is it a big deal sufficient enough for members of the T9 to get embroiled in the cover-up of a dead child? Most definitely not! Swinging may have made the News of the World in the 1970s, but it's no more than minor 'gossip' nowadays.

The reason for any cover up has to go much further than 'swinging', which is after all consensual sex between adults and neither illegal nor newsworthy.
If they were "swinging" as you put it then it was alluded to in their rogotary interviews. However, there are additional parts of "swinging" that don't bear thinking about. You would gasp in horror if ever mentioned so I won't.
Whether they were swingers or not isn't the point I am making.

The point I am making is that if they were, then I struggle to see why members of the T9 group would all consider that being known as swingers would justify covering up the death of a child. Being known as a swinger would not cost them their jobs, it would not lead to anything more adverse than a few sniggers from closed minded work colleagues, (who presumably wouldn't be their friends anyway)...and given a few weeks or months it'll be old gossip anyway. So, being a swinger, (and they may well have all been... big deal!), does not appear to be sufficient grounds to become embroiled in a cover up of the death of a child and the subsequent disposal of a corpse.

I doubt very much you could make me gasp. I like a bit of juicy gossip as much as the next person, but what a group of consenting adults get up to is not a cause for concern, and neither should it really be the concern of anyone else considering all that is wrong with the world.

If, however, what went on involved children, or non-consensual sex, then it is no longer swinging and in that case, there would be grounds for becoming embroiled in a cover up.

Yes - I agree. What has been covered up is far worse than swinging which really does not account for the high level of cover-up.

I think there are ample red flags that at least part of what is being covered up is to do with the above sentence in bold. There are so many red flags in this direction it is impossible to ignore them. And the McCanns and their friends themselves claimed from the outset that Madeleine could have been taken by a paedophile or a paedophile ring.

The 'Madeleine was Here' series contains a number of very strange scenes that I find highly suggestive of some sort of child abuse going on. Family life chez McCann is most odd, imo. And the 'reconstruction' of the final evening which Jane Tanner, Gerry and Matt take part in is also decidedly suspect. Jane Tanner is extraordinarily flippant and appears to enjoy some kind of 'in joke' with Gerry which is decidedly inappropriate given the gravity of what is supposed to have happened to an innocent nearly four year old child.

And Matt's 'reconstruction' of the final check of the McCann children in apartment 5A is beyond creepy. Gerry looks on shiftily while Matt's actions/behaviour and choice of words is just so weird. He even uses the term 'dead quiet' to describe what he heard, or didn't hear, from the children's bedroom. Talk about brain leak.

Then is it Matt or another male Tapas member who remembers searching along Cemetary Road on the night of Madeleine's disappearance? And remembers the name of the road with some kind of sense of irony, even? Now why would that be I wonder?

There is the apparent lack of a sports bag large enough to hide a ~~small child's body~~ in tennis racket in, apparently. Brains leaking information left, right and center. Even Inspector Clouseau couldn't miss all these clues, surely?

And that's without factoring in the Gasper statements; Gerry's CATS number; David Payne's suspicious actions and behaviour as evidenced in his changing rogatory statements; all the inconsistencies in the Mcs and Tapas statements; the totally inappropriate 'Lolita' style photos produced of Madeleine (I mean WTF that's a flag as big as an entire Continent) and analysis of Kate and Gerry's accounts of when they last saw Madeleine and how they found the room which again are all dripping with the language of sexual abuse, imo. Not that I am any kind of expert in the latter but there are some excellent analyses by those who do have some expertise in this area. And I find them convincing.

Not to mention the media 'performances' by Kate and Gerry which, again, I think are hugely incriminating. Gerry smirking with barely concealed contempt and Kate also demonstrating insincerity and duplicity, imo. And contempt - as in when she scrunches up the side of her mouth when talking about the crying incident I think it was? Shockingly glib.

There is every indication to me that Madeleine was objectified not only by her parents but by other adults around her who are/were friendly with her parents. David Payne and other males making comments along the lines of how attractive she was and how she was fun to be with with a 'special quality'. I don't think it's appropriate for adult males who are not family or teachers, for instance, to be taking such an interest in a four year old girl who most certainly would not be interested in them. Four year old children are intensely interested in other children not in their parents' friends.

There is no evidence that Madeleine played with any other children at Ocean Club that week, despite the fact that it is on record that she was friends with the Tapasnik's children. And, allegedly, Jez Wilkins and Bridget O'Donnell's daughter who Madeleine allegedly played with at the kids' club.

I shudder to think what happened to Madeleine that week, especially given Madeleine's father's taunt: "find the body and prove we killed her."

by Lands_end 15.04.15 16:57

j.rob wrote:
Knitted wrote:
Lands_end wrote:
Knitted wrote:
Carrry On Doctor wrote:Snipped

So, if we agree with Textusa about death on the 3rd, do we also subscribe to the swinging theory as the correct backdrop to the week, and why would that explain the lack of photos ?
Snipped

As for swinging... this is the 21st C. I appreciate that in some parts of the USA, with its unusual (at lest for the West) high levels of religiosity and many States nurturing fundamentalist mindsets and attitudes, swinging may create waves of 'shock and horror'... but this is Europe. Is swinging a big deal? Nope! Is it a big deal sufficient enough for members of the T9 to get embroiled in the cover-up of a dead child? Most definitely not! Swinging may have made the News of the World in the 1970s, but it's no more than minor 'gossip' nowadays.

The reason for any cover up has to go much further than 'swinging', which is after all consensual sex between adults and neither illegal nor newsworthy.
If they were "swinging" as you put it then it was alluded to in their rogotary interviews. However, there are additional parts of "swinging" that don't bear thinking about. You would gasp in horror if ever mentioned so I won't.
Whether they were swingers or not isn't the point I am making.

The point I am making is that if they were, then I struggle to see why members of the T9 group would all consider that being known as swingers would justify covering up the death of a child. Being known as a swinger would not cost them their jobs, it would not lead to anything more adverse than a few sniggers from closed minded work colleagues, (who presumably wouldn't be their friends anyway)...and given a few weeks or months it'll be old gossip anyway. So, being a swinger, (and they may well have all been... big deal!), does not appear to be sufficient grounds to become embroiled in a cover up of the death of a child and the subsequent disposal of a corpse.

I doubt very much you could make me gasp. I like a bit of juicy gossip as much as the next person, but what a group of consenting adults get up to is not a cause for concern, and neither should it really be the concern of anyone else considering all that is wrong with the world.

If, however, what went on involved children, or non-consensual sex, then it is no longer swinging and in that case, there would be grounds for becoming embroiled in a cover up.

Yes - I agree. What has been covered up is far worse than swinging which really does not account for the high level of cover-up.

I think there are ample red flags that at least part of what is being covered up is to do with the above sentence in bold. There are so many red flags in this direction it is impossible to ignore them. And the McCanns and their friends themselves claimed from the outset that Madeleine could have been taken by a paedophile or a paedophile ring.

The 'Madeleine was Here' series contains a number of very strange scenes that I find highly suggestive of some sort of child abuse going on. Family life chez McCann is most odd, imo. And the 'reconstruction' of the final evening which Jane Tanner, Gerry and Matt take part in is also decidedly suspect. Jane Tanner is extraordinarily flippant and appears to enjoy some kind of 'in joke' with Gerry which is decidedly inappropriate given the gravity of what is supposed to have happened to an innocent nearly four year old child.

And Matt's 'reconstruction' of the final check of the McCann children in apartment 5A is beyond creepy. Gerry looks on shiftily while Matt's actions/behaviour and choice of words is just so weird. He even uses the term 'dead quiet' to describe what he heard, or didn't hear, from the children's bedroom. Talk about brain leak.

Then is it Matt or another male Tapas member who remembers searching along Cemetary Road on the night of Madeleine's disappearance? And remembers the name of the road with some kind of sense of irony, even? Now why would that be I wonder?

There is the apparent lack of a sports bag large enough to hide a ~~small child's body~~ in tennis racket in, apparently. Brains leaking information left, right and center. Even Inspector Clouseau couldn't miss all these clues, surely?

And that's without factoring in the Gasper statements; Gerry's CATS number; David Payne's suspicious actions and behaviour as evidenced in his changing rogatory statements; all the inconsistencies in the Mcs and Tapas statements; the totally inappropriate 'Lolita' style photos produced of Madeleine (I mean WTF that's a flag as big as an entire Continent) and analysis of Kate and Gerry's accounts of when they last saw Madeleine and how they found the room which again are all dripping with the language of sexual abuse, imo. Not that I am any kind of expert in the latter but there are some excellent analyses by those who do have some expertise in this area. And I find them convincing.

Not to mention the media 'performances' by Kate and Gerry which, again, I think are hugely incriminating. Gerry smirking with barely concealed contempt and Kate also demonstrating insincerity and duplicity, imo. And contempt - as in when she scrunches up the side of her mouth when talking about the crying incident I think it was? Shockingly glib.

There is every indication to me that Madeleine was objectified not only by her parents but by other adults around her who are/were friendly with her parents. David Payne and other males making comments along the lines of how attractive she was and how she was fun to be with with a 'special quality'. I don't think it's appropriate for adult males who are not family or teachers, for instance, to be taking such an interest in a four year old girl who most certainly would not be interested in them. Four year old children are intensely interested in other children not in their parents' friends.

There is no evidence that Madeleine played with any other children at Ocean Club that week, despite the fact that it is on record that she was friends with the Tapasnik's children. And, allegedly, Jez Wilkins and Bridget O'Donnell's daughter who Madeleine allegedly played with at the kids' club.

I shudder to think what happened to Madeleine that week, especially given Madeleine's father's taunt: "find the body and prove we killed her."

All coming together by the look of things. Grange couldn't find contradictions for I'm sure they must have suspected the version of events from the outset Just a single thread is all that is needed to unravel the mystery. That thread can come from a child if one of the adults have not broken ranks already.

by Richard IV 15.04.15 17:07

This thread is supposed to be about Sonia Poulton and Sky isn`t it, not whether Textusa is right about swinging.

But while your at it - there`s no way IMO KM would share her husband with other women or casually go with another bloke. She strikes me as someone who keeps tabs on her hubby and would resent him even looking at another woman.

by HelenMeg 15.04.15 17:16

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Thank you HelenMeg, you/Textusa/others could well be right.

Going a step further then, Textusa is a firm advocate of the swinging being the reason for the cover up involving so many.

For me, the lack of photos featuring MBM by any of the group is very bizarre given that it was a family (and significantly) a group holiday. I would have expected literally hundreds of photos to have been produced for the PJ, even if the adults did 'entertain' themselves at other times.

So, if we agree with Textusa about death on the 3rd, do we also subscribe to the swinging theory as the correct backdrop to the week, and why would that explain the lack of photos ?

Just asking opinion.

All of the above IMO

Each to their own opinion on this.

The PJ, when confiscating computer / laptops from RM etc - did searches for 'swinging' as can be seen from the PJ files. Why? What prompted them to do this?
Why didn't they search for surf* sail* pae* etc?

60 people were holidaying in the Ocean Club that week. You can see names in the published lists. You can see there were a number of doctors and other professionals. You can find out much about them if you look at the various sources of information. Some knew each other. Some of the TAPAS 9 knew other guests apart from the TAPAS 9.
I think there was a common denominator for all of these guests and that OC laid on plenty of childcare in preparation.

You can read the statements of some of the guests such as S Carpenter, Balu, Berry, Jensen etc and draw your own conclusions as to whether they were telling the truth or weaving stories.
People from different professions, walks of life -all enjoying time at the Ocean Club on that particular week.
For me, it is clear that something was arranged for that particular week - some activities (probably referred to in statements as tennis! ). Activities that if broadcast in media, would have been highly embarrassing for
those guests. All the guests appear to be 33 - 50 years (approx), attractive and successful types.

However for me it is not black and white - I think there are strong golf connections - this was about 'who you know' - connections - wealth / property - like minded people - and through the accidental death of a child - these people were bound together

by HelenMeg 15.04.15 17:19

Richard IV wrote:This thread is supposed to be about Sonia Poulton and Sky isn`t it, not whether Textusa is right about swinging.

But while your at it - there`s no way IMO KM would share her husband with other women or casually go with another bloke. She strikes me as someone who keeps tabs on her hubby and would resent him even looking at another woman.

Yes !!

Why has Sonia not progressed beyond the 'neglect' myth?
After all this time spent on the project can she still honestly believe the MC Canns neglected their kids?

by j.rob 15.04.15 17:22

All coming together by the look of things. Grange couldn't find contradictions for I'm sure they must have suspected the version of events from the outset Just a single thread is all that is needed to unravel the mystery. That thread can come from a child if one of the adults have not broken ranks already.

-----

Indeed. The other children on that holiday and at Ocean Club that week, including the twins, would have been/might still be vital eye-witnesses. Even if staff and nannies at Ocean Club were confused about the identity of Madeleine McCann, and muddled her up with another of several other children (which would be perfectly feasible, imo) the twins would have known with certainty who their sister was. And it seems unlikely that the Tapas children, or at least some of them, would muddle up Madeleine with someone else.

If something did happen to Madeleine prior to the 3rd May which I suspect is the case then what were the other children told? What is really suspicious to me is that the McCanns ate breakfast and lunch every day apart from Sunday in their apartment that week. Yet, despite the fact that we have been told that Madeleine was friends with at least some of the other children (Ella - who was the same age - and Lily specifically are mentioned) there is no mention of any of the children going to the apartment to join them for lunch, say. Or just to play with Madeleine and/or the twins.

Madeleine would have wanted to join Ella, for instance at breakfast and/or lunch. Why didn't one of the other Tapas adults drop by the apartment and offer to take her to the Millennium one day so Madeleine could join the gang? No mention of any play dates or sleep-overs, for instance.

Again, this would be quite inconsistent with what a four year old child would want to be doing on a family holiday shared with friends.

What a complicated web of lies TM must have woven that week in order to cover up what really did happen to Madeleine, imo.

Even to the extent of TM and Leicestershire police asking fellow guests and holiday-makers to send in their holiday photos from that week. Presumably to find out what kind of incriminating evidence there might be and which guests had a record of events that week.

And isn't it extraordinary how few interviews there have been with other guests at the Ocean Club that week? Or indeed staff at Ocean Club?

The mind boggles.

by j.rob 15.04.15 18:02

BlueBag wrote: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).

Yes. Healthy (and I know there is speculation about this) nearly four year old children do not drop down dead for no reason. Death is a PROCESS which may take some time.

I think *something* happened earlier in the week. Madeleine became inconsolable. I think she was silenced.

It's that bad. It's that dirty. That's why there has been such a huge cover-up - at least partly - because the parents are doctors and their friends are doctors. So they are all, imo, guilty of NEGLIGENCE on a grand scale. Not just negligence but medical negligence.

That's my opinion. Some doctors/health authorities et al will do ANYTHING to deny such things. Will go to the most extraordinary lengths to dismiss any wrong doing or any culpability. The state itself will deny illness or sickness caused by medical intervention. To avoid law suits. To protect reputations. Through sheer pig-headedness.

Happens all the time as there are huge funds available to do so, via tax-payers money. Health authority trusts are not known for accountability, imo.

That is at least partly what we are seeing in this case I think.

by jeanmonroe 15.04.15 18:51

Richard IV wrote:

But while your at it - there`s no way IMO KM would share her husband with other women or casually go with another bloke. She strikes me as someone who keeps tabs on her hubby and would resent him even looking at another woman.

-------------------------------------
"She strikes me as someone who keeps tabs on her hubby and would resent him even looking at another woman."

And me!

".....it is understood Ms Chekaya was invited by Mr McCann to join his table when the quiz finished at 9.30pm."

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

NOT 'invited' by MO, DP or R O'B but by KM's husband!

And so, on ~~mega tits~~ 'quiz' night........... the 'resentment' (by KM?) began?

Went pretty much 'downhill' for the McCann couple AFTER ~~mega tits~~ 'quiz' night, didn't it?

Madeleine 'caught' in 'crossfire'?

Whoosh clunk! Maddie 'bumps' on head. (re: R Oldfield) 'accident' (re: S Healy)

thinking

Racael Oldfield,

eta: 1578 “Okay. Did you want to mention something about Doctors in the group”?

Reply “Yeah I was just going to say that, you know Kate and Gerry are both Doctors and you know there were three other medics in the group, erm four others actually sorry, four others, erm you know so if by any chance they’d accidentally done anything to Madeleine or she was ill or erm you know something wasn’t quite right, I mean they wouldn’t have just left her and sort of tried to cover it up as an accident or you know, they would of sort of you know, come and got Matt and Russell and Dave and Fi, erm I mean you know, not just because they are Doctors, because you know they’re parents and you’d kind of go to anyone to see who could help but if you’ve got, you know Doctors as friends who were there as well, erm you know there were kind of six people there who if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head or you know whatever the theories are supposed to be, erm you know, there were plenty of people there who could of you know, tried to revive a child, erm”.

"erm you know so if by any chance THEY'D accidentally DONE ANYTHING TO MADELEINE..

"IF MADELEINE HAD ACCIDENTALLY BEEN BUMPED ON THE HEAD........"

WHY would RO even put 'doubt', ANY 'doubt', about 'them' into the public 'domain'....concerning Madeleine?

by espeland 15.04.15 19:33

That's my opinion. Some doctors/health authorities et al will do ANYTHING to deny such things. Will go to the most extraordinary lengths to dismiss any wrong doing or any culpability.

But would three successive PMs, of different parties, support them - to the extent of applying international pressure and arranging a police investigation with a ridiculous remit? And not one of the MSM prepared to question anything? Whatever this is , swinging or something else, I believe it involves one or more very senior people.

by j.rob 15.04.15 22:04

espeland wrote:
That's my opinion. Some doctors/health authorities et al will do ANYTHING to deny such things. Will go to the most extraordinary lengths to dismiss any wrong doing or any culpability.

But would three successive PMs, of different parties, support them - to the extent of applying international pressure and arranging a police investigation with a ridiculous remit? And not one of the MSM prepared to question anything? Whatever this is , swinging or something else, I believe it involves one or more very senior people.

I think there was a pre-planned (media? Govt?) abduction hoax which either went wrong or got hijacked or sabotaged deliberately.The abduction hoax to be the UK version of the Elizabeth Smart alleged 'abduction'. A blonde, pretty girl is stolen from her bed at night even though there are siblings or a sibling in the same bedroom.

Paedophile rings are a feature of the Madeleine McCann case, imo. Possibly paedophile rings involving doctors? After all, the McCanns and their friends suggested that this was a motive for the abductors to steal Madeleine. Why would they say that?

by **Tony Bennett** 15.04.15 23:45

Sonia Poulton's media spokesperson Rosalinda Hutton defends her friend's film and sidesteps an awkward question:

In another place, Hutton was asked this simple question:

"Cristobell, which production company is financing it?"

----------------------------

This has drawn forth the following set of responses from Hutton:

QUOTE

Goodness me, lol, I'm not going to answer questions like that for certain vultures to feed on.

It is a professional production, wait and see!

If the documentary is to be effective and have the impact intended then the timing has to be right.

Bennett is absolutely clueless on the workings of the media, and documentaries and articles are not the same as lessons from the pulpit, that is, you can't get them all wrapped up for 8.00am Sunday morning, giving you the rest of the day free.

The real world doesn't work like that.

Works of art, of any description, are all the better for time, care and attention to detail.

Rush jobs are swiftly forgotten, as I, and many others, know [to] their cost.

The best work we can produce takes time, effort and sheer grit and determination.

We love our work as much as a Bake Off competitor loves their showstopper or an Olympian loves hitting the finishing line first.

Sonia doesn't just want to make a run a mill documentary, she wants to make a GREAT documentary.

She doesn't go into a project half arsed, it's why she is a successful mainstream journalist and those with fear of failure are not.

UNQUOTE

by Guest 16.04.15 0:16

"She doesn't go into a project half arsed, it's why she is a successful mainstream journalist and those with fear of failure are not." @ Ros/a/linda Cristobell Hutton

I beg to differ. Very recently I had a brief scan of some videos on her YouTube list and I'm sorry to say that in my eyes she's anything but professional. In general they reminded me of a sordid low cost reality show or Channel 4 tacky comedy sketch show. Better still candid camera.

It will certainly be interesting to see what she's got up her sleeve as a little pot boiler. Not over impressed with her partner in crime, on the surface that's a death wish in itself. I wonder why she didn't, or couldn't, find a more convincing stooge?

by Guest 16.04.15 0:27

HelenMeg @ 4:19 pm

"Why has Sonia not progressed beyond the 'neglect' myth?
After all this time spent on the project can she still honestly believe the MC Canns neglected their kids?"

　

I've read quite a few regular commentators across the net who still haven't moved beyond the neglect issue. Totally beyond me, they seem to shut down if you question their mind set or knock you down with virtual rotten cabbages. Sometimes I feel like a struggling politician on a soap box begging for a willing listener at Hyde Park Corner.

by plebgate 16.04.15 0:30

So this docu. is to be a work of art and will take time. So why was it announced that it would be released in March?

by stillsloppingout 16.04.15 0:43

On a different subject . the case of the missing girl in Glasgow , and the Man she was with that the police stated WAS NOT A PERSON OF INTEREST WHATSOEVER . well guess what , he is now !!! on the news now .

by lj 16.04.15 0:43

When they start calling a documentary a work of art I've had enough.

What a fruitcakes, the 2 of them.

by plebgate 16.04.15 0:45

lj wrote:When they start calling a documentary a work of art I've had enough.

What a fruitcakes, the 2 of them.

by lj 16.04.15 0:45

stillsloppingout wrote:On a different subject . the case of the missing girl in Glasgow , and the Man she was with that the police stated WAS NOT A PERSON OF INTEREST WHATSOEVER . well guess what , he is now !!! on the news now .

Thanks sso, no surprises there

by snook 16.04.15 2:49

Seriously? Do we really think this was commissioned by Sky? If there were any Mccann revelations in the pipeline I reckon Brunt would be the preferred delivery method. As for this mythical 'documentary' being aired on a major channel, again, one screeching wannabe, one cameraman and a thug minder, hardly going to have the Wolf Hall production team worrying about their BAFTA nomination. An amateur set up such as Poulton's wouldn't even be considered by a large broadcaster and if it does come off it will be another You Tube 2 day wonder. I'd gamble she has nothing new and it will be a 'look at me, I'm a dangerous 'troof seeker' and just see all these nasty people trying to silence me' I have said it from day one, she is a self serving attention seeker. No serious film maker/journalist conducts business on Twitter, throwing morsels to their adoring public. As has been pointed out, film making is an expensive business and runs to a tight plan. Commissioning, financing, production schedule etc, not an idea and let's see what we come across as we make enquiries via social media.

by aiyoyo 16.04.15 10:08

snook wrote:An amateur set up such as Poulton's wouldn't even be considered by a large broadcaster and if it does come off it will be another You Tube 2 day wonder.

Sonia Poulton @SoniaPoulton · 18 mins 18 minutes ago
@ProfWakeford whats 2&2? We will update because there have been lies spread. It's not a YouTube. Process longer. @K9Truth @veniviedivici

Sonia Poulton @SoniaPoulton
· 27 mins 27 minutes ago
@FionaSmilesMore @fiorifan @ninjabitch @veniviedivici by that point I will know where and when it will be broadcast and I will let you know.

Not on you tube. She doesn't knows as yet where it will be broadcast or wouldn't say.[/i]

by **PeterMac** 16.04.15 11:11

I suppose it is too much to expect people to wait, and then to judge the film on its merits . . .
Yes, I thought so.

by plebgate 16.04.15 11:16

People waited from October (?) until March - still none the wiser. I cannot see why direct answers cannot be given instead of cryptic clues. Last post for me until something does happen. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Whetted peoples appetites with a little snippet along the lines of you will never guess so and so ....................... well there's only so long people will wait without thinking when will all be revealed.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

by joyce1938 16.04.15 11:30

Well said peter mac, I don't know why all this bitching going on ,give it a chance ,don't know anyone else trying to the same ,so just lets judge after it is released.joyce1938