Jenny Kleeman/Guardian Documentary Film on Madeleine McCann out soon

by **Tony Bennett** 25.04.15 15:25

Jenny Kleeman/Guardian Documentary Film on Madeleine McCann out soon

The film being made for the Guardian by Jenny Kleeman on Madeleine McCann - first mentioned on CMOMM by Richard Hall here a few weeks back - will be out soon, maybe a few weeks away yet.

What I think we know about it so far is this.

It was an idea apparently floated by Jenny Kleeman herself to The Guardian.

The Guardian agreed for her to make a film. The film may appear on the Guardian’s website, or elsewhere on the mainstream media, or both. There will also almost certainly be a long article in the Guardian as well.

As far as I understand it, the genesis of the film was because of the runaway success of Richard Hall’s documentary film on the internet. Jenny Kleeman considered that a film should be made exploring this continued high level of interest eight years after Madeleine was reported missing.

As we know from Richard, she sought permission to film at one of his meetings, which he declined. She did however do some filming outside his Nottingham venue at the beginning of April, talking to one or two attendees out on the street.

Her film appears to be focusing on the fact that there is, as she says herself, ‘a huge community of doubters' – and I think the film intends to be about who those people are and why they care so much about the case.

In correspondence with her over many weeks – which I have agreed not to disclose - I can say that I have emphasised to her that if she is going to cover people’s beliefs about the case, then in fairness her film should explain why people have those beliefs, i.e. the factual basis for them.

If you are going to discuss people’s beliefs, then you should explain what those beliefs are grounded on.
To give two examples.

Dr Gerald McCann said to Sandra Felgueiras, Portuguese journalist, on a TV interview on 5 November 2009:
"I can tell you that we have also looked at evidence about cadaver dogs and they are incredibly unreliable".

What is the evidential basis for that belief? Is it correct?

Likewise, Dr Kate McCann, on page 250 of her book, 'madeleine' (Bantam Press, 2011), speaking about her having to view a video of Martin Grime's cadaver dogs alerting at various places in the McCanns' apartment, on their clothes, in their hired car etc., wrote:

"...false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or uncomscious signals of the handler. From what I saw of the dogs' responses, this certainly seemed to me to be what was happening here..."

Again, what is the evidence for that belief?

I can say that I am confident that Richard Hall’s film will be given a mention on Jenny Kleeman’s film, as by far and away the strongest and most popular documentary so far from a McCann-sceptic point of view.

I can also say that CMOMM is very likely to get a mention on the film, deservedly so of course as by far and away the best-read Madeleine discussion forum on the internet.

I have done my best to point out to Jenny that according to the new IPSO code of practice for the press and the existing OFCOM guidelines for the TV media, the film as a whole must be ‘fair’ and ‘accurate’ and that also applies to any individual or group of individuals mentioned in the film.

Finally, it is still, for a few more days, open to anyone, preferably someone from a professional background who can give a good, concise, polite and articulate summary of what they believe about the case and why, to talk to Jenny Kleeman on the record and explain their views. Contact can be made with her via the contact details on her website: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

================================================

NOTE

Less than a year ago (9 May 2014), the Guardian published an article by its former editor Roy Greenslade on the case. Greenslade has been one of the strongest opponents of anyone who dares take a different view of the case from the official line. He wrote:

QUOTE

Is the Press Complaints Commission going to find itself dealing with one last controversial complaint or will it become the first headache for the new Independent Press Standards Organisation?

I refer to the concerns aired about current media coverage of the renewed search for Madeleine McCann by both her parents and the police.

Madeleine's parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, have issued a statement, which is posted on Facebook, registering their disquiet at ‘interference’ by journalists in the new investigation into their daughter's disappearance. It states:

"We are dismayed with the way the media has behaved over the last couple of days in relation to our daughter's case.
There is an on-going, already challenging, police investigation taking place and media interference in this way not only makes the work of the police more difficult, it can potentially damage and destroy the investigation altogether – and hence the chances of us finding Madeleine and discovering what has happened to her.

As Madeleine's parents, this just compounds our distress. We urge the media to let the police get on with their work and please show some respect and consideration to Madeleine and all our family."

This came the day after the Metropolitan police assistant commissioner, Mark Rowley, sent a letter to editors appealing for restraint because of the potential for the Portuguese to halt the investigation.

Rowley explained that the British police were operating under Portuguese law and his opposite number in Portugal, in the Policia Judiciaria, did not intend – as had been the Met's practice – to brief the media on the search.

He said that the Portuguese police chief had been clear “that if we provide any briefings or information on the work they are undertaking on our behalf, or if reporters cause any disruption to their work in Portugal, activity will cease”.

It would mean that Scotland Yard detectives would be unable to excavate sites around the resort of Praia da Luz where the then three-year-old Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007.

But where exactly should the press draw the line? What happens if reporters discover facts without having had police briefings? Is it wrong for British papers to reproduce every story appearing in the Portuguese press? Where does factual reporting stop and intrusion into grief begin?

With the questions in mind, let's look at how have the press has reacted to the call for restraint.

The Daily Mirror has been in the forefront, running a ‘world exclusive’ splash on Monday, "Maddie cops to start digging up resort". The story appeared to be well sourced.

On Wednesday, the Mirror splashed on an ‘exclusive new lead’ headlined "Maddie cops to dig yards from apartment". A similar story was the splash in the Daily Star, "Maddie: police dig up 3 sites" and in the Daily Express, "Police dig in new hunt for Maddy."

If factually accurate, as appears to be the case, the problem for the Met with these stories was that it was bound to raise suspicions by the Portuguese police about off-the-record briefings (even if that was not the case).

The Sun also ran a page lead that morning, "Kate had dream of where to dig", in which Mrs McCann was alleged to have told a family liaison officer about her dream of where officers should look.

By Wednesday evening, SKY News was reporting that "disagreements over leaks to the media may delay British police in their efforts to scour areas they will be given access to."

Its crime correspondent, Martin Brunt, reported from Praia da Luz, on "what appears to be a developing row between the British authorities and the Portuguese authorities about essentially Scotland Yard giving out information to journalists about what is going to happen.

"The Portuguese are making it very clear that they were not happy with journalists being briefed."

Brunt also spoke about another ‘blow for Scotland Yard’ because - according to a report in a local Portuguese newspaper, the News Journal - the authorities had rejected a Scotland Yard plea to search the homes of three men accused of burglaries at the Praia da Luz complex at the time Madeleine vanished.

The Daily Mail also referred to ‘ongoing tensions between British and Portuguese authorities’. It quoted Met commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe as saying: “There are always going to be complications when you have got one police force in one country working with the police force of another. We have both got to be sensitive to these things”.

British newspaper editors cannot be other than aware of the sensitivity surrounding the Madeleine McCann story. Her parents spoke movingly at the Leveson inquiry of their unfortunate treatment by certain papers some seven years ago.

They remain acutely concerned about intrusions into their privacy despite acknowledging the need for continuing publicity about the case.

They and their friends, along with a local man wrongly identified as a suspect, were paid large sums in libel damages for inaccurate, defamatory reports in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance.

Although it is obvious that editors would not wish to repeat the sins of the past, they are fascinated by the story and remain wedded, as always, to the kind of scoop journalism that can lead them to overstep the mark.

I can accept that it is difficult to suppress information - and, of course, to accept the diktats of the Portuguese authority - but editors will surely wish to avoid scuppering the police operation.

One aspect of the reporting, however, does require more attention. The Mirror's article on Wednesday quoted ‘a source close to the McCanns’ as saying: "This is an emotional time for them."

And the inside story, drawing again on the unnamed source, referred to the couple as ‘tormented parents’ facing ‘their worst nightmare’" Some people may not be regard it as intrusive. But it is surely bordering on poor taste to attribute feelings to this couple in such circumstances.

Will the current regulator, the PCC, step in before this gets out of hand again? Or will it leave it to the incoming Ipso?

UNQUOTE

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

by Richard IV 25.04.15 16:19

I have my doubts that Jenny Kleeman will veer off the official track, particularly as she`s in the process of climbing the media establishment ladder, appearing on `all the best don`t you know` news programmes.

An aside - what a nerve the McCanns have got demanding no one interferes with the police investigation when they had the gall to completely cock up the Portguese investigation and run their own dodgy investigation in parallel.

by Guest 25.04.15 18:44

So that's two films due to be broadcast about this case within the next few weeks/months/after Lisbon verdict. I'm not getting too excited.

Remember the comment piece by Deborah Orr in the Guardian on 10th October last year?

by Guest 25.04.15 19:43

Ladyinred wrote:So that's two films due to be broadcast about this case within the next few weeks/months/after Lisbon verdict. I'm not getting too excited.

Remember the comment piece by Deborah Orr in the Guardian on 10th October last year?

I'm inclined to agree, I hope this is not another hired assassin or troll headhunter. How many more documentaries are we to expect in the ensuing months/years, it's getting a bit tedious.

I had to laugh at Tony's comment in his OP as follows:

"..... according to the new IPSO code of practice for the press and the existing OFCOM guidelines for the TV media, the film as a whole must be ‘fair’ and ‘accurate’ and that also applies to any individual or group of individuals mentioned in the film."

The BBCs Crimewatch production of 2013 must have slipped through the net on that one.

by TheTruthWillOut 25.04.15 20:05

Verdi wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:So that's two films due to be broadcast about this case within the next few weeks/months/after Lisbon verdict. I'm not getting too excited.

Remember the comment piece by Deborah Orr in the Guardian on 10th October last year?
I'm inclined to agree, I hope this is not another hired assassin or troll headhunter. How many more documentaries are we to expect in the ensuing months/years, it's getting a bit tedious.

I had to laugh at Tony's comment in his OP as follows:

"..... according to the new IPSO code of practice for the press and the existing OFCOM guidelines for the TV media, the film as a whole must be ‘fair’ and ‘accurate’ and that also applies to any individual or group of individuals mentioned in the film."

The BBCs Crimewatch production of 2013 must have slipped through the net on that one.

Depends what the intentions and motives of SY were. This PDF is an interesting read and case studies 1 and 2 could be relevant to this case? If something like this was being done it would mean IPSO/OFCOM wouldn't pose a problem?

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

by **PeterMac** 25.04.15 21:00

"Her film appears to be focusing on the fact that there is, as she says herself, ‘a huge community of doubters' – and I think the film intends to be about who those people are and why they care so much about the case."

That rings alarm bells for me
The film will NOT be about Madeleine, nor about the case, but will focus on the people who doubt the official line.

The McCanns and Sky have already done this and have chalked up one confirmed death on their official log.

TB's case in the High court was nothing to do with Madeleine, not about the case, nor about the lies, but focussed - brilliantly from a lawyers point of view - on a narrow legal nicety of breach of an undertaking which had itself been obtained - it might be argued - by wholly legal financial intimidation.

Just as the case against GA was again nothing to to with Madeleine, but focussed on the effect his book had - or in the event was shown did NOT have - on the parents who had abandoned their daughter to her fate. It was not about libel though that is a convenient shorthand.

In the fullness of time there might be a place for a discussion about this point, - why a few people turned themselves into vicious threatening and foul-speaking entities to try to protect the Mccanns, without any attempt to listen or look at the evidence . . .
And why so many others spent so much time looking at the available evidence, and dissecting it, and "pur[orting" theories about what actualy happened.
But the time for that will be when the mystery is solved.
Not whilst the investigation is still under weigh.

by Mo 25.04.15 21:27

TB:

In correspondence with her over many weeks – which I have agreed not to disclose - I can say that I have emphasised to her that if she is going to cover people’s beliefs about the case, then in fairness her film should explain why people have those beliefs, i.e. the factual basis for them.

I was under the impression that you and Richard D Hall wasn't too impressed with Jenny Kleeman following her gate crashing his Nottingham talk? Did you speak with her following Richard's talk which was only a few weeks ago- after all doesn't she do work for SKY like Sonia Poulton?

by MRNOODLES 25.04.15 21:46

It's obvious to me what's it all about to imo.

Operation positive MSM saturation if and when the verdict goes jugs up for the McCanns. It's the ususal 'if you don't agree with the general train of thought' you're a nutjob or fruitcake.

by Guest 25.04.15 22:21

TheTruthWillOut @ today 9:05 pm
Thank you, t is an interesting read and I entirely understand your point but I'm afraid I don't have any faith in Operation Grange so it's difficult, if not impossible, for me to be neutral on the subject or even open minded.

The inquiry began four years ago when it was stated that 30+ staff were trawling through the translated PJ files looking for the missing piece of the jigsaw and/or patronizingly looking for holes in the PJ investigation.

At some stage the inquiry morphed into an investigation, for reasons I have never quite been able to fathom. The original team was retained in terms of numbers. Members of that team visited Portugal on numerous occasions, letters of request were submitted to Portuguese authorities seeking permission to undertake various diligences in connection with their investigation. Including a costly non-productive exercise by digging up half the area surrounding the Ocean Club in search of a dirty old odd sock and miscellaneous ancient artifacts and interviewing/re-interviewing past present and future known and unknown petty criminals.

Eighteen months have passed since the Crimewatch production was aired, in the interim Redwood retired and was replaced by another DCI from the homicide squad supported by the same workforce. Still spending public money still no apparent progress still no indication of when the farce is to be concluded unsolved. Really, it can't go on forever can it?

I've read any number of theories over the months appertaining to the motives of Operation Grange but haven't once seen anything that can convince me that they are anything but dubious. One suggestion I recall, the e-fit was a trap to slowly catch Gerry McCann, splendid thought but how exactly does that work? Two images said to be of one person, although totally unalike, no indication of stature or clothing just a gray-scale image of two heads that could resemble any man on the street. It was implied that the e-fit/s were based on the Smiths sighting so why didn't Grange include the detail according to the Smith statements? I won't go into the wandering mystery tourist that didn't look like a tourist, by chance spotted by Jane Tanner and six years later identified as almost certainly the man JT saw, at least not at the moment.

Four years investigating a case that's already been investigated by the PJ and subsequently turned inside out by all and sundry? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

by Guest 25.04.15 22:30

PeterMac wrote:"Her film appears to be focusing on the fact that there is, as she says herself, ‘a huge community of doubters' – and I think the film intends to be about who those people are and why they care so much about the case."

That rings alarm bells for me
The film will NOT be about Madeleine, nor about the case, but will focus on the people who doubt the official line.

The McCanns and Sky have already done this and have chalked up one confirmed death on their official log.

TB's case in the High court was nothing to do with Madeleine, not about the case, nor about the lies, but focussed - brilliantly from a lawyers point of view - on a narrow legal nicety of breach of an undertaking which had itself been obtained - it might be argued - by wholly legal financial intimidation.

Just as the case against GA was again nothing to to with Madeleine, but focussed on the effect his book had - or in the event was shown did NOT have - on the parents who had abandoned their daughter to her fate. It was not about libel though that is a convenient shorthand.

In the fullness of time there might be a place for a discussion about this point, - why a few people turned themselves into vicious threatening and foul-speaking entities to try to protect the Mccanns, without any attempt to listen or look at the evidence . . .
And why so many others spent so much time looking at the available evidence, and dissecting it, and "pur[orting" theories about what actualy happened.
But the time for that will be when the mystery is solved.
Not whilst the investigation is still under weigh.

My thoughts exactly, only my words not so well put.

by Guest 25.04.15 22:34

Mo wrote:TB:

In correspondence with her over many weeks – which I have agreed not to disclose - I can say that I have emphasised to her that if she is going to cover people’s beliefs about the case, then in fairness her film should explain why people have those beliefs, i.e. the factual basis for them.

I was under the impression that you and Richard D Hall wasn't too impressed with Jenny Kleeman following her gate crashing his Nottingham talk? Did you speak with her following Richard's talk which was only a few weeks ago- after all doesn't she do work for SKY like Sonia Poulton?

I vaguely remember comments being made about JK's intrusion. Not being familiar with the woman I did a quick google, I swiftly concluded that Kleeman is of the same stamp as Poulton so immediately lost interest.

by **Tony Bennett** 25.04.15 23:01

Mo wrote:I was under the impression that you and Richard D Hall wasn't too impressed with Jenny Kleeman following her gate crashing his Nottingham talk?

Richard certainly believed this would be a hatchet job on all the doubters - or a 'hit piece' as he called it I think

Did you speak with her following Richard's talk which was only a few weeks ago - after all doesn't she do work for SKY like Sonia Poulton?

We spoke for about half-an-hour a couple of weeks back. If she was making a fllm about the doubters, I wanted her to know these things:
(a) that the doubters had a good factual basis for their doubts
(b) that it would IMO be improper to make a film about people's beliefs without explaining clearly to viewers what the key facts underpinning those beliefs are, and
(c) that though there were a small minority of nasty and spiteful McCann-doubters on the net (as the Sun pointed out by using Rosalinda Hutton as a prime example) they were not representative of the hundreds of professional, educated and indeed ordinary, decent, working or retired people whose views on the Madeleine McCann case have been guided by reason, analysis and judgment and not by prejudice or hate.

To be honest, when I compare what I can see on the internet about Jenny Kleeman's films, with Sonia Poulton's output to date, I see a very marked difference. Kleeman is certainly a professional journalist of repute.

Whether she can fairly represent the scale of doubt about the claimed abducution of Madeleine - and do justice to the reasons for it -remain to be seen, of course.

I have done my best to politely advance to her the case that I think the best, most dedicated and concerned posters and guests here would have wanted someone to make to Jenny Kleeman. I can do no more than that

by Guest 25.04.15 23:07

Thanks, TB.

by Mo 25.04.15 23:22

Tony Bennett wrote:
Mo wrote:I was under the impression that you and Richard D Hall wasn't too impressed with Jenny Kleeman following her gate crashing his Nottingham talk?

Richard certainly believed this would be a hatchet job on all the doubters - or a 'hit piece' as he called it I think

Did you speak with her following Richard's talk which was only a few weeks ago - after all doesn't she do work for SKY like Sonia Poulton?

We spoke for about half-an-hour a couple of weeks back. If she was making a fllm about the doubters, I wanted her to know these things:
(a) that the doubters had a good factual basis for their doubts
(b) that it would IMO be improper to make a film about people's beliefs without explaining clearly

to viewers what the key facts underpinning those beliefs are, and
(c) that though there were a small minority of nasty and spiteful McCann-doubters on the net (as the Sun pointed out by using Rosalinda Hutton as a prime example) they were not representativeof the hundreds of professional, educated and indeed ordinary, decent, working or retired people whose views on the Madeleine McCann case have been guided by reason, analysis and judgment and not by prejudice or hate.

To be honest, when I compare what I can see on the internet about Jenny Kleeman's films, with Sonia Poulton's output to date, I see a very marked difference. Kleeman is certainly a professional journalist of repute.

Whether she can fairly represent the scale of doubt about the claimed abducution of Madeleine - and do justice to the reasons for it -remain to be seen, of course.

I have done my best to politely advance to her the case that I think the best, most dedicated and concerned posters and guests here would have wanted someone to make to Jenny Kleeman. I can do no more than that

Thank you Tony for your response. I would have been of the opinion she was being brave as RDH has been, but, because she has stated that there is a 'huge community of doubters' I feel the film will focus on retired people who are perhaps lonely with nothing better to do with their time.

by TheTruthWillOut 25.04.15 23:44

@Verdi.

Though I currently believe OG to be legit I'm completely aware that it could turn out to be a whitewash. I don't want that to be the case though.

I don't know if you've been following the Claudia Lawrence case but that has been going on 6 years, is on the second investigation team but doesn't have the political and media interference as seen in this case.

It is quite clear to me that the police have their suspects and have stated publicly that they know people have lied to them (and will arrest them!) but don't have the evidence. A pact of silence, basically!

Bear in mind the PJ retain the lead in this case and OG have to follow their rules of silence. It does make even me uncomfortable, but seeing as there is no patsy in sight for a whitewash, what does that leave?

1, close case-unsolved.

2, Arrest and charge the actual perps

Number 1 will cause high embarrassment and a whole new group of people demanding answers of what they've done the last four years and £10+ million. And where does it leave the PJ?

Number 2 is the only option IMO that gets the "monkeys" off everyone's backs.

On top of this I just can't see the PJ going along with a whitewash for a foreign country given past terrible treatment and the fact they have Socrates on remand. What would be in it for them?

by aiyoyo 26.04.15 0:32

Tony Bennett wrote:"]
Richard certainly believed this would be a hatchet job on all the doubters - or a 'hit piece' as he called it I think.

If she is going to use recent spike in McCann-related activities to draw her factual info from for her documentary, I fear Richard Hall's apprehension may be right. Conversely, it can be said that the high level of interest is maintained by the sycophantic MSM, that has nothing to do with exposing the buried truth.

She has jumped on the bandwagon (in the footstep of Martin Brunt) to do a hit piece for self serving purpose and to sell papers. Labelling doubters as "community" has a bad feel to it.

The MSM is bound by Code of Conduct to observe restraint reporting whilst investigation is alive.
I cannot see how she can introduce elements that may compromise the future legal aspects for the case.

IF she intents to deliver an objective piece, no reason for her refusal to accede to RH's terms for interview with him; and then shamelessly stalked him to his event venue to harrass the attendees there.

by aiyoyo 26.04.15 0:37

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
On top of this I just can't see the PJ going along with a whitewash for a foreign country given past terrible treatment and the fact they have Socrates on remand. What would be in it for them?

I go along with that.

by **Richard D. Hall** 26.04.15 0:53

Just to be absolutely clear. As a previous poster correctly pointed out.

I did agree to be interviewed for the Kleeman film, and I gave 3 simple conditions before I would take part.

1. I get to see and approve the finished piece
2. The focus of the film is on the facts of the case
3. They give links to my documentaries within their documentary

Kleeman and the Guardian refused to agree to these simple conditions.

At the Nottingham lecture where Kleeman showed up outside with a cameraman, I was the last person out of the building because I take down the set and the stall and load it into the van when everyone has gone. When I drove out of the venue she was still at the entrance with the cameraman making it clear she wanted me on camera - after refusing to agree to my terms.

by notlongnow 26.04.15 0:59

Think that speaks volumes.
Well done on your excellent videos.

by TheTruthWillOut 26.04.15 1:05

Re: The MSM

I think the problem they have (please forgive this phrase) is blue balls. They were told in no uncertain terms before last years Luz digs to lay off and leave them to the investigation. Portugal secrecy laws etc.

All they have left is to report on the doubters and "trolls".

Again I'll mention the CL case and say the police have begged the MSM not to name the suspects, which they seem to be complying with. Everything else they can, and do!, report on. No such luxury with OG.

by aiyoyo 26.04.15 2:32

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

All they have left is to report on the doubters and "trolls".

The contention is not what they report on, but how they report on it.

If they are objective, and give a balanced report, then the topic isn't a concern.

by aiyoyo 26.04.15 3:31

Tony Bennett wrote:
Dr Gerald McCann said to Sandra Felgueiras, Portuguese journalist, on a TV interview on 5 November 2009:
"I can tell you that we have also looked at evidence about cadaver dogs and they are incredibly unreliable".

What is the evidential basis for that belief? Is it correct?

I doubt JK will touch much on evidence of the case (if any), let alone raise in depth questions regarding the dogs.
Just imagine if she dares to ask and/or dares to say -
That Gerry was proven wrong on the case in America he used as example to discredit the dogs.
Why Gerry concerns himself over track records of dogs in America when on the home turf there are considerable proven cases using dogs eg April Jones Case, Tia Sharp case, etc.

You can foresee she will avoid raising questions that bear negative inference / implication for the Mcs .

The fact that the UK Police continues to deploy dogs in their search operations is strong indication that they trust the dogs. This won't have escaped the McCanns. Nor the fact that OG used 4 dogs in their PDL search.

by Angelique 26.04.15 10:00

TheTruthWillOut wrote:Re: The MSM

I think the problem they have (please forgive this phrase) is blue balls. They were told in no uncertain terms before last years Luz digs to lay off and leave them to the investigation. Portugal secrecy laws etc.

All they have left is to report on the doubters and "trolls".

Again I'll mention the CL case and say the police have begged the MSM not to name the suspects, which they seem to be complying with. Everything else they can, and do!, report on. No such luxury with OG.

I agree with you points : Portugal secrecy laws, doubters and trolls, no reporting on OG.

SP and now JK.

Everything is "dove-tailing" nicely, don't you think?

by Richard IV 26.04.15 10:07

Richard D. Hall wrote:Just to be absolutely clear. As a previous poster correctly pointed out.

I did agree to be interviewed for the Kleeman film, and I gave 3 simple conditions before I would take part.

1. I get to see and approve the finished piece
2. The focus of the film is on the facts of the case
3. They give links to my documentaries within their documentary

Kleeman and the Guardian refused to agree to these simple conditions.

At the Nottingham lecture where Kleeman showed up outside with a cameraman, I was the last person out of the building because I take down the set and the stall and load it into the van when everyone has gone. When I drove out of the venue she was still at the entrance with the cameraman making it clear she wanted me on camera - after refusing to agree to my terms.

Which brings me most definitely to conclude you wouldn`t be able to see the finished piece because she knows you will not like it; the focus of the film will NOT be on the facts of the case; your own work is given no acknowledgement yet she wants a shot of you on camera (driving away like a criminal in the dark?).

by Knitted 26.04.15 10:32

aiyoyo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Dr Gerald McCann said to Sandra Felgueiras, Portuguese journalist, on a TV interview on 5 November 2009:
"I can tell you that we have also looked at evidence about cadaver dogs and they are incredibly unreliable".

What is the evidential basis for that belief? Is it correct?
Snipped:

The fact that the UK Police continues to deploy dogs in their search operations is strong indication that they trust the dogs. This won't have escaped the McCanns. Nor the fact that OG used 4 dogs in their PDL search.

I suspect most people, if you were to mention "Police Dogs and McCanns" in the same context, will think of: (i) The high-quality footage of last year's digs around PdL, (which some camps will see as a 'jolly', whilst others will see it as an earnest attempt to search...it matters not), & more importantly (ii) Four trained dogs with their uniformed handlers bounding around freely all week and finding.... Errm, what was it now?... an old sock? ("alerting to clothing"), a rabbit bone?, ("'alerting to death'").... Or was it they found nothing?

If Grange is a whitewash then deploying dogs to PdL last year and having them filmed was money very well spent.

by Guest 26.04.15 10:44

TB, has JK asked you to feature in her film?

by Rufus T 26.04.15 10:55

From Tony's original post -

Finally, it is still, for a few more days, open to anyone, preferably someone from a professional background who can give a good, concise, polite and articulate summary of what they believe about the case and why, to talk to Jenny Kleeman on the record and explain their views. Contact can be made with her via the contact details on her website: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I do hope when you mention"preferably from a professional background" it is because, rightly or wrongly, the general public tend to give more weight to what a "professional" says. When I read this yesterday it made me rather angry and I do not like to post in anger, so can you please clarify why you wrote that, thank you.

by Richard IV 26.04.15 11:26

Gardeners, plumbers, electricians, artisans, etc need not apply. Professionals carry credibility. Intelligence and/or the ability to pass exams is superior to talent in this country - about time this changed.

TB - It came across as a bit condescending, but we know what you mean. IMO it really just needs someone that can organise their thoughts and articulate them well. Just remembering that politicians can do that titter

Professional

A professional is a member of a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The term also describes the standards of education and training that prepare members of the profession with the particular knowledge and skills necessary to perform the role of that profession. In addition, most professionals are subject to strict codes of conduct enshrining rigorous [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Professional standards of practice and ethics for a particular field are typically agreed upon and maintained through widely recognized[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Some definitions of "professional" limit this term to those professions that serve some important aspect of public interest ^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]}and the general good of society.^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]}^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]}
In some cultures, the term is used as shorthand to describe a particular social stratum of well-educated workers who enjoy considerable [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and who are commonly engaged in creative and intellectually challenging work.^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]}^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]}^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]}^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]}

Trades

In narrow usage, not all expertise is considered a profession. Although sometimes referred to as professions, occupations such as skilled construction and maintenance work are more generally thought of as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] or crafts. The completion of an apprenticeship is generally associated with skilled labor or trades such as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]and other similar occupations. A related distinction would be that a professional does mainly [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] work, as opposed to engaging in physical work.

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

by **Tony Bennett** 26.04.15 11:42

Rufus T wrote:From Tony's original post -

Finally, it is still, for a few more days, open to anyone, preferably someone from a professional background who can give a good, concise, polite and articulate summary of what they believe about the case and why, to talk to Jenny Kleeman on the record and explain their views. Contact can be made with her via the contact details on her website: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I do hope when you mention "preferably from a professional background" it is because, rightly or wrongly, the general public tend to give more weight to what a "professional" says. When I read this yesterday it made me rather angry and I do not like to post in anger, so can you please clarify why you wrote that, thank you.

Suppose you are a film-maker who genuinely wants to understand the point of view of the 'doubters' in a case where the doubters say they do not believe the highly-promoted official version of an event.

Suppose, further, that you wish to put on screen someone who can credibly articulate that 'doubting' view, so as to impress the viewers that the 'doubters' case has real merit.

Do you choose as your leading doubters, e.g. a current or past police officer, a current or past scenes-of-crime examiner, a current or past criminologist, a current or past body language or statement analyst, a current or past psychiatrist, psychologist, doctor, lawyer etc.?

Or do you choose someone unemployed, or someone employed as a Tesco cashier, McDonalds 'crew' member, postman or labourer?

It's as simple as that, no more, no less. So when you wrote: "I do hope when you mention 'preferably from a professional background' it is because, rightly or wrongly, the general public tend to give more weight to what a 'professional' says", yes, that is what I meant.

However I will add that Jenny Kleeman specifically told me she is open to ANYONE, however humble their background, who can credibly articulate their reasons for doubt.

by Guest 26.04.15 12:08

Rufus T wrote:From Tony's original post -

Finally, it is still, for a few more days, open to anyone, preferably someone from a professional background who can give a good, concise, polite and articulate summary of what they believe about the case and why, to talk to Jenny Kleeman on the record and explain their views. Contact can be made with her via the contact details on her website: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I do hope when you mention"preferably from a professional background" it is because, rightly or wrongly, the general public tend to give more weight to what a "professional" says. When I read this yesterday it made me rather angry and I do not like to post in anger, so can you please clarify why you wrote that, thank you.

I totally agree with your issue, although I quite understand Tony's point, maybe 'professional' has been taken out of context?

I was more grateful for his acknowledgment in a later post :

".... that though there were a small minority of nasty and spiteful McCann-doubters on the net (as the Sun pointed out by using Rosalinda Hutton as a prime example) they were not representative of the hundreds of professional, educated and indeed ordinary, decent, working or retired people whose views on the Madeleine McCann case have been guided by reason, analysis and judgment and not by prejudice or hate."

A considerable number of patronizing arrogant people seem to think that unless you're armed with a masters degree from a well respected university, your opinion is not worth knowing. Totally ignoring the fact that the university of life is equally beneficial. Add to that, the adjectives hurled about - fruitloop nutcase tin-foil hatter conspiraloon f-wit etc. - I find it thoroughly insulting. Thanks to Tony for making it clear that we are all of equal value.