Re: Help! TV company has contacted me

by **Tony Bennett** 03.10.15 11:15

Ladyinred wrote:Or give up, as Jenny Kleeman has done, it would seem.

A CMOMM member has drawn my attention to this tweet by a Wendy Kerfoot, back in June:

Wendy Kerfoot @ 1965Wendy
@ jennykleeman @ StigAbell Thank you 4 saying we don't know what happened to Madeleine McCann on paper review. Most take it as read, abducted! 2:39 AM - 19 Jun 2015

It seems that she appeared on a late night review of the papers - and one of the headlines that came up was yet another Daily Express banner headline about Madeleine McCann.

I am told that she hesitated and said something along the lines of: "Well, we don't really know what happened to Madeleine..."

If she has abandoned her project - and we don't know for certain that she has - it could be connected to her having watched Richard Hall's first film - and having received a volume of information on the case from myself and certain other CMOMM members.

As I said right at the outset when we first heard about her, she has an impressive track record so far as a journalist and maker of short documentary films.

Is it possible that she is a journalist of real integrity? - and simply realised, after studying the material about the case that she saw and read, that there was a lot more to this case than an abducted child and a bunch of aggressive internet trolls - and told the Guardian editor that she wasn't going to do it?

by ROSA 03.10.15 11:27

Well if the McCann's still think that no one can point a finger at them their very wrong the public have every right too and they cant sue everyone.

by hentie 03.10.15 14:28

I believe Jenny Kleeman does have integrity.
Speaking to her on the phone, with a view to adding more until I rather lost my nerve due to health condition (I didn't feel up to facing possible furore if her spoken of documentary was broadcast. Also OH wasn't at all keen on possible publicity of the unwelcome type!) I told her I had changed my mind at her second phone call and reason why.
She was very sympathetic, gave me a phone number in case I changed my mind, gave her word she wouldn't bother me again.
She hasn't.

by willowthewisp 03.10.15 15:03

Hi Henti
It is called the "Freedom of Expression" in the pursuance of Truth other than paid mouth pieces,Clarence Mitchell and legal cohorts hiding behind super Injunctions, for paying clients from the "Find Madeleine Fund" and the famous,"Leaving No Stone Unturned"quest for the truth?
Take a look at the BBC licence paid by the public about to be used to discredit potential witness to child abuse in their up and coming Panorama Documentary, you can be sure of one thing they will be trying to disassociate themselves from anything related to Sir Jimmy Saville,Stuart Hall and former BBC executives?

by comperedna 03.10.15 15:52

I watch Sky late at night for the review of the next day's papers. Jenny Kleeman is a regular, and she seems both on the ball and on the level - quite thoughtful and never grandstanding. Just my two-pennorth...

by deafoldbat 04.10.15 10:24

So unlikely she would risk her good name by producing anything that could be Carter-rucked or having the McC shills attacking her Twitter account!

Having 'decent' journalists in my family, I know they keep their heads down and don't get noticed - but that means that they never make it as a big name on TV or newspapers.

by hentie 04.10.15 11:21

willowthewisp wrote:Hi Henti
It is called the "Freedom of Expression" in the pursuance of Truth other than paid mouth pieces,Clarence Mitchell and legal cohorts hiding behind super Injunctions, for paying clients from the "Find Madeleine Fund" and the famous,"Leaving No Stone Unturned"quest for the truth?
Take a look at the BBC licence paid by the public about to be used to discredit potential witness to child abuse in their up and coming Panorama Documentary, you can be sure of one thing they will be trying to disassociate themselves from anything related to Sir Jimmy Saville,Stuart Hall and former BBC executives?

Hi willowthewisp, agree with you.
Sadly it seems a world where integrity holds you back and can make you unpopular.

by **Richard D. Hall** 08.10.15 13:59

I've just seen this post.

The answer is simple. Only agree to take part if you can see what will be aired before it airs and reserve the right to change it if you are not happy.

If you say this they will run a mile.

The list of questions they gave you are probably a trap. Some of them will never see the light of day. It looks like another hit piece. They are not interested in the real issues. They are interested in highlighting the fact the a "web sleuth" as they call it - is not professional therefore unqualified to solve crimes. It's blatant where they are going with it. It's an attempt to discredit.

by jeanmonroe 08.10.15 15:44

@Richard D Hall

".......highlighting the fact that a "web sleuth" as they call it - is not professional therefore unqualified to solve crimes."
-----------------------------

Well, DCI Wall, and previously DCI Redwood at OG 'are' 'professionals'.

But i have seen very little evidence of their 'professionalism' and 'qualities' to 'solve' a particular 'crime'!

Four YEARS and 5 months of FULL TIME 'investigation' and still, apparently, WITHOUT a 'clue' about what 'happened' to a 'missing' three years old child!

They have not, and can't, imo, provide 'evidence' beyond contestation, not even a scintilla of 'evidence' that, as they were told, ONLY by the 'missing' childs parents, 'the/an abduction' by anyone, ever took place.

I don't see how 'a web sleuth' could do any 'worse', again imo, than the 38 full time 'professionals'. (@OG)

by Lance De Boils 08.10.15 21:42

Any tv company who wants to contact me directly is more than welcome to do so. smilie

by **Richard D. Hall** 08.10.15 22:01

Yes I agree Jean. What I was saying is that because this case is a cover up, it has not been solved because of corruption - not because they don't know what happened. They could have easily solved this case if there was no cover up. People turning to the internet for answers on this case quickly learn that "others" have solved the case enough to make the official investigation look either a. incompetent or b. corrupt.

So I think it is important for those behind this conspiracy to discredit the "online sleuth". If it was not for "online sleuths" it would have been much more difficult to produce my films on this case. Hail ye online sleuths.

by jeanmonroe 09.10.15 14:26

23/09/2009.

GM: '...and there's no EVIDENCE to IMPLICATE 'us' in her (Madeleine's) DEATH'

He might just as well have 'said', smugly, 'PROVE IT!' (you 'mugs')

I'd never thought i'd 'quote' a 'line' from Eastenders but, when 'Ronnie' was arguing with her sister 'Roxy', about her 'new' boyfriend, 'Roxy' says 'there's no evidence he raped her' when talking about her 'rapist boyfriend' 'rape' of 'Linda Carter.'

'Ronnie' comes back with 'Just because there's no evidence, that dosen't mean he didn't do it, you mug!'

'Roxy' 'yeah, whatever'