Netflix probes Madeleine McCann disappearance in new documentary

plebgate wrote:Anyone see Clarrie on tv news today at six.   The parents want nothing to do with it as it could hinder the on going police investigation blah blah.  They were asked several times to get involved.  Same old same old.

I also saw a headline that said Netflix had unearthed pictures of Maddie boarding the plane to go to Portugal.

Unearthed?  Been widely available online for years.  

Don't think I will bother with this Netflix film.

Yes, Plebgate, I saw that "never before seen" pic of Madeleine, on the Daily Mail an hour ago. I couldn't be bothered to even post it on here. That photograph of Madeleine climbing the stairs of the plane has been in the public domain for over ten years, yet the Daily Fail says it's a new discovery. Piffle!

As for the Netflix film, I was asked earlier today if I had seen any of it. I said I haven't, and I don't think I am going to watch it. I heard that Sandra Felguieras now believes that the McCanns are "innocent" and that Amaral "lied". I then asked the person concerned if they could answer why Scotland Yard has spent over £12 million - and counting - on a search for one particular child, and why did the Tapas 9 tell so many lies. Add in that Summers and Swan has a hand in this film, and it can stay on the shelf, as far as I am concerned.

Well that is news SallyP.   Why has Sandra F changed her mind I wonder?

Yep I wont be watching it.  Sounds like a load of tosh to me.

Rocky has won at the Portugese Appeal Court, that's good enough for me.

Has this been mentioned in the Netflix film?

plebgate wrote:Well that is news SallyP.   Why has Sandra F changed her mind I wonder?

Yep I wont be watching it.  Sounds like a load of tosh to me.

Rocky has won at the Portugese Appeal Court, that's good enough for me.

Has this been mentioned in the Netflix film?

As I've said, plebgate, I haven't watched the film, myself, and I won't be watching it, but the person I was talking to earlier today, who has watched it, said that "SF now believes that the McCanns are innocent", I asked why SF has had a change of heart and I was told "SF said that Amaral lied about the DNA results"

Does Sandra really believe that the McCanns are innocent?

Has she been blackmailed or bribed?

Is this just media hype?

Has there been some very clever editing in the making of the film?

Thanks Sally. 

I wonder why, IF Sandra now believes this why proof wasn't offered at the Court of Appeal?

sharonl wrote:Does Sandra really believe that the McCanns are innocent?

Has she been blackmailed or bribed?

Is this just media hype?

Has there been some very clever editing in the making of the film?

Sharoni. I just called the person who saw the film, to ask for clarification what SF actually said, and this is what I have been told, SF said that it was leaked to her, by Amaral, that the DNA was 20 point match. As it turned out, that wasn't the case, so SF called Amaral and asked him why he had said that it was a full match when it wasn't the case. According to my source, Amaral said to SF "well, it is evidence, isn't it". SF then said "I feel ashamed", referring to the way she was towards the McCanns.

plebgate wrote:Thanks Sally. 

I wonder why, IF Sandra now believes this why proof wasn't offered at the Court of Appeal?

Plebgate, I have no idea. Someone will have to watch the film and then give their views on what SF has said. It's difficult explaining what someone else has said, and while I don't doubt the person for a moment, as she's honest to a fault, I can only say what she's said.

sallypelt wrote:

sharonl wrote:Does Sandra really believe that the McCanns are innocent?

Has she been blackmailed or bribed?

Is this just media hype?

Has there been some very clever editing in the making of the film?

Sharoni. I just called the person who saw the film, to ask for clarification what SF actually said, and this is what I have been told, SF said that it was leaked to her, by Amaral, that the DNA was 20 point match. As it turned out, that wasn't the case, so SF called Amaral and asked him why he had said that it was a full match when it wasn't the case. According to my source, Amaral said to SF "well, it is evidence, isn't it". SF then said "I feel ashamed", referring to the way she was towards the McCanns.  

Making Amaral out to be a liar then?

I very much doubt that Amaral leaked out anything to anyone, they were never permitted to discuss the case.

Besides, didn't Brunt report a 100% DNA match in the hire car?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 Daily Mail  
Child protection expert Jim Gamble said he suspected Mr McCann and wife Kate 'from the very outset' – and even tried to get the father to 'do the right thing...


[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.] A senior British police officer initially believed Gerry McCann might have been involved in his daughter Madeleine's disappearance, it was revealed yesterday. Child protection expert Jim Gamble ... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Not worth bothering with, 
BUT
7 comments allowed, now they only allow like/dislike
This one is the most liked . . .


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

Who appears in Netflix’s The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

In a similar vein to The Staircase and Abducted in Plain Sight, The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann – which became available on the streaming platform at 8am on 15 March 2019 – features some 40 experts and key figures linked to the case.
And, according to Netflix, we can expect “never-before-heard testimonies from those at the heart of the story including friends of the McCann family, investigators working the case and from those who became the subject of media speculation and rumour”.

Jim Gamble: Senior child protection officer, who hints that Madeleine could still be alive and found with the help of improved technology. “There’s huge hope to be had with the advances in technology. Year on year DNA is getting better. Year on year other techniques, including facial recognition, are getting better,” he says in the series. “And as we use that technology to revisit and review that which we captured in the past, there’s every likelihood that something we already know will slip into position.”
Martin Grime: Forensic dog trainer who brought his blood-and cadaver-sniffing dogs to Praia da Luz.
David Hughes: PR advisor hired by the McCanns after they returned to England.
Ernie Allen: Former president and CEO of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
Sandra Felgueiras: Journalist with RTP (Rádio e Televisão de Portugal) who covered the McCann case.
Robert Murat: Local Portuguese-British man who was declared arguido, or suspect, in the McCann case. His arguido status was lifted due to lack of evidence.
Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan: Investigative journalists who co-wrote Looking for Madeleine, a 2015 book about the McCann case.
Sergey Malinka: Russian immigrant who was questioned by the polícia judiciária because of his business relationship with Robert Murat.
Paulo Pereira Cristóvão: Former detective with the polícia judiciária.
Patrícia de Sousa Cipriano: Lawyer and president of the Portuguese Association of Missing Children.
Justine McGuinness: PR advisor to the McCanns.
Homayra Sellier: President of Innocence in Danger, an organisation that works to protect children from abuse and exploitation.
Margarida Davim: Journalist who co-authored the controversial Pact of Silence article, claiming the Tapas 9 had omitted information from their statements in a bid to protect the McCanns, which was published in a Portuguese newspaper.
Felícia Cabrita: Portuguese investigative journalist who co-authored the Pact of Silence article and is known for reporting on Portugal’s Casa Pia child abuse case.
Phil Hall: Former newspaper editor who worked as a PR consultant for the McCanns.
Jayne Jensen: Tourist at the Ocean Club Resort who reported seeing two strange men shortly before Madeleine disappeared.
Susan & Haynes Hubbard: Friends of the McCanns.
Gonçalo Amaral: Former chief investigating coordinator with the polícia judiciária in Portimão.
Brian Kennedy: Businessman and McCann benefactor who funded independent investigations into Madeleine’s disappearance.
Patrick Kennedy: Brian Kennedy’s son. He travelled with investigators to follow leads in the McCann case.
Rogério Alves: Lawyer for Kate and Gerry McCann.
Julian Peribañez: Spanish private investigator who went to the Algarve to try to uncover new information.
Melissa Little: Police forensic artist who sketched strange men witnesses say they spotted near the Ocean Club Resort.
Richard Parton: Freelance voice analyst hired by Washington, DC-based detective agency Oakley International.

Looking at the above link, it appears that it's a patchwork quilt of everything we already know. I am not expecting anything to come out of this film that isn't already known. I will wait to see what the Sandra Felgueiras offerings are all about.

sallypelt wrote:

sharonl wrote:Does Sandra really believe that the McCanns are innocent?

Has she been blackmailed or bribed?

Is this just media hype?

Has there been some very clever editing in the making of the film?

Sharoni. I just called the person who saw the film, to ask for clarification what SF actually said, and this is what I have been told, SF said that it was leaked to her, by Amaral, that the DNA was 20 point match. As it turned out, that wasn't the case, so SF called Amaral and asked him why he had said that it was a full match when it wasn't the case. According to my source, Amaral said to SF "well, it is evidence, isn't it". SF then said "I feel ashamed", referring to the way she was towards the McCanns.  

Amaral said he never told Sandra anything.

The dogs have been discredited.

Dr Amaral has been discredied.

Sandra is now pro-McCann and said she feels embarrassed to have been part of it.

Well I'm now up to episode six and my response to what I've seen thus far is that this netflix programme is mis-titled. It should not be called "The disappearance of Madeleine McCann" but rather "The exoneration  of Kate and Gerry McCann".
Interestingly, thus far they haven't mentioned a word about Mrs. Fenn alleging she heard a child crying for an hour and a quarter on the Tuesday night. Instead viewers are told that the children were being checked every half hour, with an unconvincing "balancing" comment that some of the T.9 said it was every 20- 30 mins and others every hour. Anyone who stopped watching at this stage would believe that Tannerman was still considered a major lead. The Smith sighting was mentioned in the same breath as Tannerman (clearly trying to connect the two) and they repeat the BBC claim that the Smiths changed their mind about Smithman being Gerry. Sandra F. calls Dr. Amaral a liar and says it was a good thing he was removed from the case - that he hadn't done his job properly!
For all the McCanns faux distancling themselves from this series it has their fingerprints all over it. The sad thing is that it will be seen by millions worldwide!! I'd say they're breaking open the bubbly in Rothley tonight. I wonder how much netflix got to help them make this piece of "investigative" bias!

edited to add No mention of the fund, or the Madeleine merchandise, trademarking etc. Bloody unbelievable!!!!!!!!!

SF says she made the point about dna report -

“The last paragraph said exactly this ‘this sample is so minimum and is so common that we have plenty of people here with exactly the same mark.’ How can you talk about such a serious thing, a crime, neglecting all these issues that are absolutely important to understanding the case? And he said to me “Look, we have an evidence and our translator didn’t translate everything. He just translated the first paragraphs” “

Amaral: “I never informed Sandra Felgueiras about any of the details of the investigation “

SF: “That was my turning point. And when this happened, I understood that the intention of those cops that were inside the investigation was not honest.”

Cut to tv news reporter to camera: “One of the more bizarre aspects of this case is the lack of evidence to support any theory. The abduction trail has gone cold and some people are calling this DNA evidence pretty flimsy.”

“The Portuguese had built their case on what had happened in apartment 5a, but that soon came tumbling down.”

So, Neil Berry took the parachute photo claimed to show Madeleine in the Ocean Club.
No new photo from that week has shown up in 12 years and he is only mention it very hastily in this TV show without to expand the information re this parachute photo and no further questions from the interviewer, for example on what day was this photo taken?
And I still wonder why Edmonds has get away without to mentioned as an element during these 12 years.
He was in the Tapas restaurant this evening.
He left pdl in the very early morning on May 4.
He claimed he had taken the last photo and as far as we know he has never been questioned by the police.

For anyone new watching these films it's obvious that it's designed to exonerate the McCanns, as Phoebe said, and the audience will be left believing the McCanns and that Madeleine really is still out there, especially now Sandra F has sided with the McCanns and spoken out against GA and the PJ.

The dogs have been discredited. The PJ were said to have misinterpreted the results and lied to Sandra, although GA said he never said anything to her.

Episode 6 was all about comparing the Cipriano case and the Madeleine case and the private investigation of Metodo 3 and Brian and Patrick Kennedy. We're left with the idea that both Joana and Madeleine could still be alive.

The link to the 'misjustice' of both the Cipriano and Madeleine case (the police didn't have enough evidence so they blamed the parents) is, surprise, the 'arguido' Gonçalo Amaral who was dismissed from the Madeleine case.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The Sun
MADELEINE McCann's parents have slammed a new Netflix documentary on ... Clarence Mitchell told ITV's This Morning that Kate and Gerry McCann ...


Awww, Kate and Gerry, I think you know that's not true don't you? 

Jill Havern wrote:For anyone new watching these films it's obvious that it's designed to exonerate the McCanns, as Phoebe said, and the audience will be left believing the McCanns and that Madeleine really is still out there, especially now Sandra F has sided with the McCanns and spoken out against GA and the PJ.

The dogs have been discredited. The PJ were said to have misinterpreted the results and lied to Sandra, although GA said he never said anything to her.

Episode 6 was all about comparing the Cipriano case and the Madeleine case and the private investigation of Metodo 3 and Brian and Patrick Kennedy. We're left with the idea that both Joana and Madeleine could still be alive.

The link to the 'misjustice' of both the Cipriano and Madeleine case (the police didn't have enough evidence so they blamed the parents) is, surprise, the 'arguido' Gonçalo Amaral who was dismissed from the Madeleine case.

It's not unusual that people who take part in productions like this have to sign an agreement to follow the rules of the production and another question, how much did they get paid?
I believe a big production like this with an agenda has no problem to make people follow this agenda if they pay them enough money and lock'em up in an agreement.

Watched Episodes 1,34 and 8.

Found the editing frustrating. Just, in my opinion, seemed intent on discrediting the Portugese investigation and Luz itself. Are we to believe Luz is a den of iniquity with many dogs roaming about and a feeling of menace !  Well it isnt, been there many times.   

Hi everyone. 

Jill, I've had to re-register, because I forgot logins, and no longer have access to the email address I used to register years ago.

Anyway, for anyone that knows me, will know that I've been around since the beginning and will know I've always thought the parents were involved. 

After watching the documentary(just finished episode 7) I'm torn. I know this is what they want.

When I woke up this morning I mentioned it to my husband and said, I'm not sure anymore. As I was saying it, I couldn't believe what I was saying, neither could he. I'm so torn now. I was 1000000000% of the belief they were involved pre doc, now I'm 50%-50% 

What got me is this...

Sandra F - that's some turnaround for someone who I feel wouldn't lie, and I don't believe she could be bought off. The reporting of a story of her being bought off by the Mccann team would be far bigger than anything she could be paid in my opinion. 

Jim Gamble - master manipulator? I'm not so sure. 

There were a couple of other things that stood out, for example the way in which everyone spoke about them...I KNOW! I KNOW! I KNOW! This was set out to make people believe they are not involved and she really was abducted. 
However, I'm not going to force myself to believe they are involved if it's not how I truly feel. 

On the other side...
 
I'm torn by the dogs, it always comes back to the dogs for me. Were they really discredited in the doc, did we really find out any more about them? I don't think we did. We've always known what they are used for and it's not evidence in itself. I still believe the dog alerts is damning 'evidence'. 

Then the inconsistencies, Jane Tanner, the door, the checks, the seating arrangements.

I need to watch the final episode which I will do this evening.

I know my opinion won't be a popular one, I had to get off my chest. I'm not a troll, I dip in and out of the forum, have done for many, many years.

I posted this just now in Pat Brown's section of this forum:

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

As I said, last night, when I posted that I won't be watching this Netflix film. I took this decision after a friend of mine said she had watched a few episodes, and said "I am now doubting if the McCanns are involved.." I asked her why she had come to that decision, and she said (non verbatim) SF had changed her views on the McCanns, and that Amaral had lied about the DNA. I then posted this on the Forum, and when I saw that many posters had not seen this, I called my friend and asked her what, exactly, was said on the film. She told me over the phone, and then I posted it on the Forum. As I said, I had not seen it, myself, and I will not be watching it. 

I said to my friend, once again, then why did they all lie (T9) and why have they spent £12 million (and still counting) of taxpayers money on ONE child. My friends said "oh, I don't know, it's just how I felt after seeing the film".

So, what is this film all about?  Are the Gaspers mentioned? 

The search for the truth goes on, but from my limited knowledge of the film's context,  one is NOT going to find it on Netflix.

princessleia wrote:Hi everyone. 

Jill, I've had to re-register, because I forgot logins, and no longer have access to the email address I used to register years ago.

(Snipped)

I know my opinion won't be a popular one, I had to get off my chest. I'm not a troll, I dip in and out of the forum, have done for many, many years.

Not a problem. Welcome back.

Yes, I understand your confusion now - that was their objective and I think they've achieved it. It was a success for the McCanns.

I feel quite depressed by it all actually having watched all 8 episodes, although wasn't paying 100% attention, but got the gist of it. I can understand why you feel torn.

Hurry up Peter and Tony with your analysis...

Wasn't Rocky surprised when the DNA evidence was destroyed?   If he lied why would he have drawn attention to that?

Re. Sandra's comments.  No evidence to show that Rocky said it to her.

Why would anyone turn against Rocky now with no evidence to substantiate Sandra's claim?

Evidence, evidence, evidence please and if any is produced it can be sent to the Appeal Court Judges.

Was Rocky supposed to have given Sandra this info. before the libel hearing in Portugal or later?

i wonder why GA took part in that film. I got the sense he dug his own grave with his own words.

I wonder how he's feeling today?

Before I head off to watch the last episodes of this propaganda piece here's a few more observations.
As far as I can see, anything which would make the McCanns look bad has been either omitted or diluted. 
There is testimony to suggest that although the P.J. found their leaving of the twins odd, it was quite commonplace and others had done it in the past on other holidays or would have chanced it. 
There is no mention of Madeleine''s reward chart which indicated she was prone to waking at night.
 There is no mention of the Tuesday night crying for an hour and a quarter.
The airport bus video had been cropped to avoid showing Gerry in a bad light.
None of the Tapas staff or Ocean Club workers have yet been interviewed. It is baldly stated that at the time of the Smith sighting loads of witnesses "Placed" Gerry at the tapas bar (conveniently omitting independent witnesses who say he was absent form the table for about thirty mins).
There is no mention (so far) of the McCanns having paid half a million to the newspapers to keep them front page everyday for a year.
Jeremy Wilkins has been airbrushed out of the Tanner sighting, as has Jane's reason for crying during the McCann reconstruction - ie - the dispute between herself and Gerry over their differing accounts.

Verity wrote:i wonder why GA took part in that film. I got the sense he dug his own grave with his own words.

I wonder how he's feeling today?

Verity, this is what "journalists" do. They are there to make money, and very little else. I have been on the sharp edge of their poetic licence. The tricks these people pull will make your jaw drop to the floor. Read Pat Brown's posts, and you will get a flavour of what these so-called journalists are capable of.

And none of the happy go lucky, smiling, smirking faces of the McCanns in general that we usually see, only the sad looking ones.

Poor Fake and Merry McCann.

Verity wrote:And none of the happy go lucky, smiling, smirking faces of the McCanns in general that we usually see, only the sad looking ones.

Poor Fake and Merry McCann.

Fake and Merry McCann   

They certainly appeared happy and smiley in the photo of them at the races with Mi Lord.

Anyone spot them at Cheltenham this year,  that's an ever so posh place.