Thursday, 14 March 2019

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MADELEINE - TRAILER

NETFLIX TRAILER
 
Herewith the trailer for the Netflix documentary.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBnarCTOiCY
 
It looks to me as though it is another exercise in knocking the Portuguese police and planting (yet again) the idea that the Algarve is a haven for paedophiles and human traffickers. I read part of a statement from one commentator on the documentary who said little white, blonde haired Madeleine had a higher value than the third world tots of colour that are apparently two a penny.  It was at that point my heart sank, if that is the kind of thinking behind this documentary, then we are back in the McCann circus pre intervention by Operation Grange.  
 
Anyway, I am pushed for time, but I am sure there will be lots to discuss later.  

69 comments:

  1. Yes, lots from a trailer. So, you criticize the parents for wanting to distance themselves from the documentary ( which you also thought was nothing more than a rumour being spread by them lol), and now you have come to big conclusions based on a short trailer and have decided that if you don't see what you like or see that it agrees with all of your guesses and opinions, it's '' the McCann circus'' to blame. I sometimes wonder if you know much about this case at all. Priceless.Look on the bright side. At least they're trying to introduce something new. I'm sure the Aryan theories will take off, given the date she disappeared.It's a good day for bloggers, forumites, social platforms, youtube and all the others who pretend to understand crime detection, the law, and psychology.But in terms of the Madeleine McCann case, it's just another day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't criticise the parents so much as question why two people who's daughter is missing, and who have spent millions on raising awareness of Madeleine's plight, would not use the 130m+ audience of Netflix to appeal for Madeleine's return.

      They seem to be expecting a hammering from the documentary, and are poised with their lawyers to scrutinize everything Goncalo Amaral says. Their main concern, as always, is Goncalo Amaral, not their daughter. They wanted him banned from speaking about the case at all, but they lost, GA retains the same Freedom of Speech as the rest of us.

      As we know the McCanns have fought tooth and nail to keep GA and his thesis away from a British audience and they have largely been successful. GA's book still isn't available in the UK. However, despite all their efforts to maintain a one sided narrative (theirs), those who want to, can read the truth about the Madeleine case online, along with the police files of the original investigation. Anyone taking a peek beyond the headlines will quickly see the other side of the story, the side the UK MSM have failed to report.

      I was wrong in guessing the makers were American. Apparently Pulse films is a British Company, which probably explains why it has taken them 2 years to screen it. Every journalist investigating this case knows there is a wall. Actually several walls ensuring the truth never comes out. Lucky for the McCanns it is a British company, because I am sure a hard hitting US team wouldn't bother with the pussyfooting.

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton14 March 2019 at 18:01

      ''I didn't criticise the parents so much as question why two people who's daughter is missing, and who have spent millions on raising awareness of Madeleine's plight, would not use the 130m+ audience of Netflix to appeal for Madeleine's return.''

      It was explained to you in your last thread about it all.It's ll been done and gone nowhere.Madeleine is a young lady now( hopefully).How do we recognise her ?You're over stretching to try and find anything whatsoever to criticise the parents for. It gets disturbing when you try that hard.Especially when you're pretending you have no idea what happened to the child or if the parents are guilty of anything.

      ''They seem to be expecting a hammering from the documentary, and are poised with their lawyers to scrutinize everything Goncalo Amaral says''

      The 'seem to be'' ? Why ? because they said they dodn't want to take part ?You read that as them sat with their legal team watching Amaral with no evidence whatsoever.Sound familiar ?

      ''However, despite all their efforts to maintain a one sided narrative (theirs), those who want to, can read the truth about the Madeleine case online''

      The one sided narrative is also the official line that the police have taken.Did you forget about them or are your blinkers on too tight again ?Shall we tell the police to go online and see? If it's on the internet it must be real.They might solve it then.

      '' Every journalist investigating this case knows there is a wall. Actually several walls ensuring the truth never comes out.''

      Can you name one who told you that or are you guessing ( again).

      '' Lucky for the McCanns it is a British company, because I am sure a hard hitting US team wouldn't bother with the pussyfooting.''

      yeah, go gettem Uncle Sam...tell em the dook sent ya...

      America,The land of truth and beauty.Never a lie or any propaganda over there is there.It all changed when the naughty pixies blew up the towers and mickey mouse shot JFK with a catapult...

      Delete
  2. I see Amaral and Murat get another platform to whine from.That's a shock. Not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am looking forward to hearing what they have to say.

      I am not prejudging.

      Delete
    2. I am relieved to see that Goncalo Amaral has taken part in the documentary. His presence does at least suggest the makers are showing both sides, abduction and non abduction.

      I am curious as to what Summers and Swan will have to say. Their book on Madeleine bombed and was torn apart on Amazon. They are the experts Jim Gamble cites when people ask questions about the dogs. S&S are 100% pro McCann and pro the abduction story. Jim Gamble is spreading his usual 'paedophiles are all around us' scare and it looks as though they have found a sleazy looking fellow to confirm it all.

      As for Goncalo Amaral and Robert Murat whining, whining is not how anyone would describe the eye witness testimony of two individuals who were in the thick of it as whining.

      Whining by the way, is more applicable to Gerry and Kate. See every interview they have ever done.

      Delete
    3. The difference being that the McCanns lost their little girl.They were devastated. You see them as 'whiners'. that's you though..

      Amaral lost his job and Murat lost his reputation( whatever that was). But they whined their way to a huge payout.Nice work if you can get it eh....

      Do you judge every film or book by how it's received online ?Have you left the real world for good now ? It would account for how out of touch you are...

      Delete
  3. It seems that pat Brown is not happy

    "Pat Brown

    Netflix sinks to a new low after Making a Murderer. This “documentary” looks to be a huge propaganda effort to completely exonerate the McCanns and trash all people who question the abduction theory. As with Making a Murderer, it appears they have brought in a team of “experts” to manipulate the viewers into believing the defense side (in this case:Gerry and Kaye McCann) and into believing any one else (in this case: Amaral, me, the dogs, the evidence, etc) is nothing but lies and fabrications created by incompetents or crooked cops and psychopaths. They are going to use creepy music, emotion, and twisted I formation to get everyone to believe Maddie was trafficked and is still alive and can be found. I believe the claim the McCanns refused to participate is the opening gambit to get viewers to believe the documentary is on the up and up."

    "Now, The Daily Star is libeling me with the a headline that states the Smith family walked past Maddie’s “abductor.” These fake journalists and crap rags need to be be put out of business."

    "Do I have any UK attorney Twitter friends who want to go after The Sun for libeling me? All of you have been following me for years on this case know I would never say Madeleine was abducted and that Smithman was a kidnapper who “snatched” Maddie."
    -------------------------------------------------------

    It seems that whenever she takes part in shows she is "misquoted" - a few years ago she was going to sue an Aus paper for misquoting her too!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pat Brown, the queen of pulp fiction parading as crime busting. It must be killing her. She's never one to miss an opportunity to leech onto something that's generating cash and fame. Maybe she'll have to pt some work in this time. Like citing facts instead of guesses and sources instead of inventing.Or she could question big names within the police forces and politics. No...too easy to go for the cheap money shots isn't it Ms Brown.Just another spotlight chaser who comes out in a rash if the light moves away from her and her predictable and unsupportable babble.Maybe her and the other wannabe's could get a petition to block the airing as it doesn't back the nutters up. Or everyone could compose really angry tweets. That'll get things done. It's a really influential place and it's responsible for great changes we see around us every day . True story .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a world of difference between wit and sarcasm, 16:58, quite rightly. Sarcasm just flat out isn't funny. It is usually tinged with bitterness and spite and so off putting any point you are trying to make is lost.

      Your post is like a concentrated can of vitriol. Why so bitter towards Pat Brown? What has she ever done to you, because it's sounding kind of personal.

      You know what I sense? Another one of those 'Doh' moments as it dawns on the McCanns that they may have lost out on millions in royalties and donations to their Fund had they taken part. I see dark clouds looming and fury ahead.

      Delete
    2. Pat Brown is a writer of tack. She is fame obsessed. She is also a bitter and twisted hater of the McCann parents. You are bound to blindly defend her and attack anyone who points out what she is as you feel an affinity with her type...

      Incidentally, nobody needs a lecture on wit and sarcasm form someone who understands neither.Nor do you get to accuse anyone of making anything personal when 75% of your last 10 years has been dedicated to promoting vitriol to hurl in the direction of two parents who had the audacity to have their little girl taken.

      Delete
    3. There's a world of difference between proven and unproven opinion too. Like the difference between lying and telling the truth.And let's not forget those other two : guessing and recalling a real event.

      Delete
    4. And here comes the fury, lol. Pat is a criminal profiler, her interest in this case is quite understandable and it has nothing to do with hating the parents, I'm sure. Yes the parents aren't likeable, we get that, but this case isn't just about them.

      I understand both, wit and sarcasm. That's why I have hundreds of readers who return again and again. Even those who don't like me, like my writing.

      I don't happen to believe these two parents had their little girl taken, and I don't believe these same two parents should have the right to silence 1)Goncalo Amaral and 2)everyone who doesn't believe them.

      I have no doubt Gerry and Kate would love to be lauded as they were in the summer of 2007, before people got to know them, time hasn't done them any favours. Obnoxious people like yourself don't do them any favours either, you are the face of Madeleine McCann Inc, and it's not pretty.

      Delete
    5. ''as it dawns on the McCanns that they may have lost out on millions in royalties and donations to their Fund had they taken part. I see dark clouds looming and fury ahead.''

      That's called Borderline personality disorder. Google it.

      Delete
    6. ''And here comes the fury, lol. Pat is a criminal profiler, her interest in this case is quite understandable and it has nothing to do with hating the parents, I'm sure. Yes the parents aren't likeable, we get that, but this case isn't just about them.''

      As a 'criminal profiler' what's her take on the main players in the McCann case ?

      ''I understand both, wit and sarcasm. That's why I have hundreds of readers who return again and again. Even those who don't like me, like my writing. ''

      You have a few echoes and a lot more who won't contribute.

      ''I don't happen to believe these two parents had their little girl taken, and I don't believe these same two parents should have the right to silence
      1)Goncalo Amaral and 2)everyone who doesn't believe them.''

      Last night you were pretending you didn't know or have a clue what happened. Another day another agenda...

      If anyone is accused of either killing or concealing the body of their own child they have a right to demand proof and to demand they retract the allegations.Anyone who doesn't see that is choosing not to see it.That's an agenda- driven opinion on their part or complete ignorance.Probably both.

      ''. Obnoxious people like yourself ''

      You don't know me or a thing about me.But you hate what i point out.Your reaction is that of a petulant child.

      Delete
    7. ''you are the face of Madeleine McCann Inc, and it's not pretty.''

      You mean i represent those who think the world would be a better place if people had self control and didn't look for easy targets to bully.I represent those who think justice has to be seen to be done but only after due process.I represent the people who believe anyone is innocent in the eyes of the actual law until the law proves otherwise. I represent the people who demand that screaming accusers should produce evidence to back their rants up. Yes, I can see why that wouldn't look pretty to your kind.It probably scares you.

      Delete
  5. Of course the trailer may only be about the first episode of 8 and the position may change as the "documentary" goes on.

    A lot of people around the internet seem to have decided on the full content from a very short trailer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think they usually release the entire series in one go - hence we are now a nation of binge watchers.

      Delete
    2. Mean't to add, I lost an entire week watching House of Cards, lol.

      Delete
    3. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton14 March 2019 at 18:20

      Mean't to add, I lost an entire week watching House of Cards, lol."
      --------------------------------------

      You may think that is funny and clever but:

      "House of Cards is a 1990 British political thriller television serial in four episodes, set after the end of Margaret Thatcher's tenure as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It was televised by the BBC from 18 November to 9 December 1990, to critical and popular acclaim."

      No need for Netfix - you could have watched it for free at the time or now at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0082dzs/episodes/player

      Delete
    4. What a numpty. It was remade for Netflix and starred Kevin Spacey.

      You do own a TV don't you?

      Delete
    5. Who is Kevin Spacey?

      Pooh

      Delete
    6. An unusual suspect, Comrade

      Delete
    7. ''A lot of people around the internet seem to have decided on the full content from a very short trailer.''

      They'll be the same people who write their own screen plays and stories if they're more scandalous than rel life..

      Delete
    8. @03:45

      Spacey Kev then. I thought so.

      Delete
  6. Unfortunately ordinary people who havnt got the money to investigate this case from the beginning, as it should have been by SY, and dont have money to employ expensive PR and expensive lawyers (money donated by these ordinary people, pensioners, school children, hard working members of the public,) money aquired by sueing anyone who has the temerity to question these educated professionals, these decent people of our country,who want justice for Madeline have to recourse to twitter and the like, what the hell else can they do, we did have free speech in this country, the Macanns and their ilk are running the show, Its going to take someone who knows what happened with a backbone and courage to stand up and be counted, I fear that person will remain spineless and the pros on this site and every other site and blog will carry on with their withering put downs, who just like to do the written equivalent of hearing their own voices and really dont care what happened to Madeline at all. I despair of this country, its police and its politicians. Pros ! I couldnt give a you know what what you think of this post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never mind what the pros think 17:40, I think your post is brilliant! I especially like 'written equivalent of hearing their own voices'. That sums perfectly, their long winded diatribes!

      Delete
    2. 14 March 17.40. Brilliant post, completely agree. I too couldn't give a you know what what they think. You'll no doubt get a withering response.

      Delete
    3. Just looking at your 'brilliant' post...

      It's a reasonably original but back handed attack on the McCanns isn't it. hence the feedback from the anti people being slightly 'gushy'.

      ''Unfortunately ordinary people who havnt got the money to investigate this case''

      They haven't got the qualifications or training either. Doesn't that matter ? I suppose not. If we can solve the mystery from computers while the police still struggle, I suppose anything goes....


      ''these decent people of our country,who want justice for Madeline''

      I swear i heard 'Land of Hope And Glory' in the distance then....

      '' have to recourse to twitter and the like, what the hell else can they do, we did have free speech in this country,'''

      Conducting an investigation on the internet via Twitter and it's like.Because we can't fund ourselves as policemen.I see....

      We still have free speech, by the way. I'm surprised you didn't know that, given your liking of social networks. You can say anything and call anyone anything and accuse them of being anything.No need for proof or evidence. Enjoy yourself....

      ''Its going to take someone who knows what hap
      pened with a backbone and courage to stand up and be counted, ''

      You mean whoever took Madeleine ? Or are you suggesting somebody in the force is without a spine ?

      ''I fear that person will remain spineless and the pros on this site and every other site and blog will carry on with their withering put downs, who just like to do the written equivalent of hearing their own voices and really dont care what happened to Madeline at all. ''

      You're on a roll.The pros point out that all the allegations, all the defamation and all the accusations are nothing but hearsay until one spec( yes- just one) of evidence turns up to support one or all their guesses.The pros point out that in a civilised 21st century culture, people have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty even if they stand charged of a crime. The parents haven't even been charged with one.The pros point out that if the main cause is justice for Madeleine that the antis should try and remember that instead of using things they invent so they can vent their anger at parents who lost a child.

      '' I despair of this country, its police and its politicians. Pros ! ''

      Are they the three bodies who support the parents of a missing child who want to get her back ? You 'despair' of that ?

      ''I couldnt give a you know what what you think of this post.''

      It's a very illuminating post.It throws a light into the dark recesses of the antis collective consciousness. Or should that be unconsciousness...

      Your post will receive praise from the like minded antis and haters who find the need for evidence irritating but can't preach about the police missing all those 'obvious' clues..they're too sacred to..

      Let me sum up the crux of the problem....

      The antis believe that if their suspicions are strong enough and others share that same suspicion, then there's no need for all that fancy smancy evidence that the police are so fussy about.They also believe that, as they've decided that they have cracked the case that it's all right to accuse the parents of whatever they choose and they are above providing evidence to back themselves up.

      The pros believe in innocent until proven guilty and due process.Not in vigilantism.The public making themselves the police is vigilantism-whether they can fund themselves or not.

      If the targets of the antis are ever found guilty, the pros will be the first to put their hands up and say they were wrong and join the chorus of disapproval.But the pros feel that if the antis are so bent on spreading their theories then they should answer simple questions about their evidence and proof.

      Delete
    4. Are Martin Grime, Mark Harrison and John Lowe 'pros'?

      Delete
    5. @ Anonymous14 March 2019 at 17:40

      What a load of drivel.

      But Ros - the English marker and expert in writing says it is "brilliant" - how odd.

      Delete
    6. '' the pros on this site and every other site and blog will carry on with their withering put downs, who just like to do the written equivalent of hearing their own voices and really dont care what happened to Madeline ''

      And there it is.....

      For a week on this blog( most previous couple of threads) an invitation has been published for the antis to stop preaching their gospel and start answering questions. For instance :
      Why keep citing the dogs findings if the police aren't using them.

      Why keep saying the little girl is dead if she hasn't been declared dead.

      Why keep saying the McCanns haven't proved their innocence when they've never been charged with anything

      Why pass on innuendo about their friends involvement in a crime only the antis have created the narrative for

      Why quote Amaral, a convicted liar, and his theories as 'proof' of a crime if he himself can't prove the crime

      The answers never came, obviously. They still haven't and never will, because the answers don't exist.In the cold light of day, the antis have all of the above as their chosen narrative. It's a long way of going for the most predictable cliche ; the parents did it, 'just look at them'.And that, according to the antis, is good enough reason to have open season on the parents.Remind them of this painful truth and they kick and bite.You'll be called a 'pro' as though it's an insult just for demanding fair play; for asking for the accusers to back themselves up.And now this latest of cheap shots - if you're a pro you don't care about Madeleine.Welcome to underneath the barrel....

      Delete
    7. As expected!19.47, sorry, lost the will to live part way through your post, got the gist, as I said earlier, bothered, NO ! No, 17.40, Im not an educated professional, my grammer might be lacking these days, but I care 19.47, Im neither anti or pro, I would be thrilled if Madeliene was returned very soon to her family as would everybody on the planet who has taken an interest in this case. I do not understand some of the Macanns behavour, with the best will in the world. I do think a full investigation, involving the Macanns and their friends would, perhaps exonerate them and put an end to the constant speculation and conpiracies. Regadless of your post, thats how I feel. Goodnight

      Delete
    8. Anonymous14 March 2019 at 18:26

      ''14 March 17.40. Brilliant post, completely agree. I too couldn't give a you know what what they think. You'll no doubt get a withering response.''

      The word 'withering' in two separate posts.The first in the original and the second in your reply to yourself.I'm getting good at this shit.If i can learn to lie too I'll get Amaral's old job..

      Delete
    9. your questions have been answered many times 21:43, but each time you ignore the answers.

      Why keep citing the dogs findings if the police aren't using them. Who says the police aren't using them, you? lol. They have 'used' them, I refer you to the digs in PDL. They were looking for a body.

      Why keep saying the little girl is dead? See above digs in Portugal. See Portuguese police files, see Goncalo Amaral's book. No sign of life in 12 years.

      Why keep saying MCanns haven't proved their innocence....? In the eyes of the world they haven't, in the eyes of the original investigation they haven't, in the eyes of the Portuguese Supreme Court they haven't and in the eyes of Leicester Police they haven't.

      No idea what the innuendo question is about.

      Why take the word of Goncalo Amaral? (the rest of that sentence was just slander). Goncalo Amaral was a long serving detective with over 30 years experience. He is also highly educated, obviously well read, and has remained dignified throughout the McCanns ongoing vendetta.

      GA's book runs contemporaneously alongside the files from the original investigation, ergo, his story is corroborated by official documents.

      No doubt you will ignore all of the above again, and claim your questions have gone unanswered lol. You are not beneath the barrel so much as down at the bottom of it scraping away.

      Delete
    10. ''Why keep citing the dogs findings if the police aren't using them. Who says the police aren't using them, you? lol''

      Is the 'lol' a terrible attempt at getting the question dismissed ? I'll tell you who says the police aren't using the findings. Everyone who has been waiting for the case to go to court for 12 years but not obsessing on the culprits being the parents.What takes 12 years to do with the findings of a dog or to ? Nothing.The findings are gone.The only way to use them is in a prosecution.When did that happen ?

      ''They have 'used' them, I refer you to the digs in PDL. They were looking for a body.''

      Normal practice with or without police dogs.But if you think that's significant, by the same logic, the lack of a body is equally significant. It sort of confirms the inadequacy of the so-called findings doesn't it...a wasted dig...no evidence found of a body so the antis will say it was there..'in theory'

      '''Why keep saying the little girl is dead? See above digs in Portugal. ''

      Oh i see. because a gang of diggers made holes the child is dead. tell SY and PJ.They seem to think differently.

      ''see Goncalo Amaral's book. No sign of life in 12 years.''

      See a dictionary then see 'missing'.Then see 'perjury'

      ''Why keep saying MCanns haven't proved their innocence....?
      In the eyes of the world they haven't''

      In the eyes of the law they don't stand accused so don't need to prove anything or be cleared of anything.You can't speak for the world. Your little messiah complex is too amusing to carry weight.The world isn't full of haters.There are normal people too...

      ''Why take the word of Goncalo Amaral? (the rest of that sentence was just slander). Goncalo Amaral was a long serving detective with over 30 years experience''

      And the only major player in the piece with a criminal record, How ironic.And it was earned in a previous missing little girl case and it concerned him altering the truth in the files.A sort of pre -cursor to the truth of his lies..

      ''He is also highly educated, obviously well read, and has remained dignified throughout the McCanns ongoing vendetta.''

      He launched an attack on them, they had the audacity to defend themselves.Only a sick mind could see that as a vendetta.

      ''GA's book runs contemporaneously alongside the files from the original investigation, ergo, his story is corroborated by official documents. ''

      So why doesn't the rest of the PJ use his book as a source in the investigation ? Probably for the same reasons your precious Supreme Court pointed out : it hasn't led to any arrests or developments in the actual case.I wonder why...

      ''No doubt you will ignore all of the above again, and claim your questions have gone unanswered lol.''

      Maybe i should have asked for reasonable, sensible or less silly answers.

      '' You are not beneath the barrel so much as down at the bottom of it scraping away.''

      I suppose that's slightly better than being told my dad's fat or my mum smells.Thanks Oscar Wilde.Come back when you can take arguments apart.Any fool can call names.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous14 March 2019 at 22:10

      ''As expected!19.47, sorry, lost the will to live part way through your post, got the gist, as I said earlier, bothered,''

      yes, i understand. It's called a short attention span.I often accuse the antis of lazy mindedness for the very same thing.The world may run on clicks and buttons but criminal investigations require a bit more in the way of meticulous study.But Twitter's fun. Nice Catherine Tate reference there- 'bothered'. That's fresh.

      ''Im not an educated professional, my grammer might be lacking these days, but I care 19.47,''

      I never criticised any grammar.I criticised the thoughts behind what you were saying.They're more important.

      '' I do not understand some of the Macanns behavour,''

      Here's some advice.I'm not saying that in a patronising way.We know, at best, very little about the McCanns behaviour.Don't watch them in interviews on clips.They aren't showing you their unguarded, natural behaviour that's valuable.They are in an unnatural Q and A session with an interviewer, lights, microphones and a crew behind the camera.That's for the media. The media is a business.Those online who will 'interpret' the behaviour are only trying to do so with a view to 'proving' signs of guilt based on documentaries they've seen.Its pretty stupid stuff.The other behaviour is what we are told they did on the night and did during the early investigation.These are two people with twin babies and a missing toddler in a foreign country surrounded by the worlds media spotlights. Who behaves naturally with the torment of the loss and the scrutiny of the global bored ?

      No interpretation of their behaviour will ever incriminate them or exonerate them. If barking dogs and blood and supposed eye witnesses make no difference then some pseudo psychologist with a freeze frame and a computer won't. All I'll say is whichever aspect of this case you consider have one statement at hand as you are formulating a conclusion : 'check the facts of that'.


      Delete
    12. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton14 March 2019 at 18:17


      ''Never mind what the pros think 17:40, I think your post is brilliant!''

      This from the woman who always tries to sell the idea that her blog is the best due it's welcoming of all sides of a discussion.Anyone would think she's a compulsive liar.

      Delete
  7. Hello Rosalinda and others

    I’ve just watch the trailer. About 1.30-1.40 in it there’s a little girl carried by a woman, whom Clara Torres (a tourist) in Morocco claims to have taken a photo of. She is supposed to have discovered the resemblance between this girl and Madeleine when she’d got home.

    This little girl is then said to have been found a few days later by journalists looking for her, and a new photo is said to have been taken of her. All of it, nothing but lies lies and hoax. I could easily see with my own eyes a few years ago; that all of the published photos were taken at the same time and that the last published one was manipulated so the little girl got Madeleine’s eyes. Clarence Mitchell, I remember, commented on these photos and regretted that it wasn’t Madeleine but added that it was quite good from a marketing point of view. Those who are interested can search on Moroccan girl in Madeleine case, Clara Torres and similar. I haven’t the link right now, but I can help if someone want to discuss it.

    What a good start Rosalinda. Netflix using hoax, fraud and lies in their trailer, unless this photo appeared just because they wanted to discuss the manipulation and lies behind it, which I sincerely doubt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Björn14 March 2019 at 20:30

      Fascinating Björn - have you watched all 8 episodes?

      Delete
    2. Yes, if they wanted to make a decent hoax and discuss lies and manipulation they could have consulted all the antis to get their take on it. As long as they don't ask if there's any evidence they'd be on to a blockbuster.

      Delete
    3. I can't say I'm enthused by the trailer Bjorn, one of the opening frames goes straight to 'a mistake by the lead detective'. Ie. It was a mistake by the PJ to suspect the parents.

      It would appear the paedophile and human trafficking angles still have much mileage left them. They will probably make one child disappearing on the Algarve an 'epidemic' requiring urgent policing of the internet. I would ask why, in all these years, none of these paedophile and trafficking gangs been arrested? Have they rescued any children in their search for Madeleine? I'm guessing not, because if they had, we would have heard.

      From the parents perspective it looks as though it is going to be great for them and I'm pretty sure they are kicking themselves for not becoming involved. If it evoked enough sympathy it could have topped up their legal Fund, and got the search for a 'live' Madeleine restarted. How many holiday packs and prayer cards would £1m Netflix money have funded?

      Instead we have angry Gerry and Kate once again. Poised and ready to pounce on Goncalo Amaral if he says anything they don't like. To the pros the constant anger is not endearing, and it runs right through the ranks, don't you lot ever chill out?

      Delete
    4. A long and thoughtful critique of a series of documentaries that you or nobody else has even seen.It takes quite some effort to display such a heavy bias about something and someone with nothing to call on as justification. Why bother ? Is it a drastic pre-emptive strike ? If the series fails to frame the parents you can come online and point to these posts as a clever 'i told you so' mini triumph ?

      But I'm sure it's just you 'chilling out''.

      Delete
  8. 14 March 2019 19.57. Get lost you patronising bore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What- and be an anti ? Don't think so ...by the way, great rebuttal.I take it you're an anti :)

      Delete
    2. Did that feel good.

      Delete
  9. "Anonymous14 March 2019 at 21:4
    Get lost you patronising bore."

    You shouldn't talk about Ros that way!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Re: 23:21
    That would be "Slingshot".
    It's America where we live, don't you know.
    Advice from readers of this blog: Get an education.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @00:15

      “That would be "Slingshot".
      It's America where we live, don't you know.”

      Good shot!

      Pooh

      Delete
    2. Was that supposed to be cutting.Do better.

      Delete
    3. @12:36

      I quoted a good remark. Credit was due.


      And not expecting pardon,
      Hardened in heart anew,
      But glad to have sat under
      Thunder and rain with you,
      And grateful too
      For sunlight on the garden.

      Have a good weak end.

      Not at all.

      Louis :)

      Delete
    4. Yes, well done ladies. You found 'catapult' to be an incorrect reference and missed the actual point.Brilliant.

      Delete
    5. the replies have been published out of sequence Pooh..

      Delete
  11. I've watched episode 1 - seems to be fair and factual.

    ReplyDelete
  12. These words came to mind earlier, words from Simon & Garfunkles, The Boxer. "....still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was contemplating a song i wrote for Leonard Cohen back in the day...

      ''We asked for signs
      The signs were sent
      The birth betrayed
      The marriage spent
      Yeah the widowhood
      Of every government
      Signs for all to see...

      ...I can't run no more
      With that lawless crowd
      While the killers in high places
      Say their prayers out loud
      But they've summoned, they've summoned up
      A thundercloud

      And they're going to hear from me ''

      Delete
  13. Episode 3

    Sandra Felgueiras: "I was 100% sure that they [the McCanns] didn't share the whole information they had. Something very different from what they told the world happened."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes watch on - she accuses the PJ and Amaral of lying to her.

      Delete
    2. So she thinks that the parents were hiding something out of guilt- just like the PJ think. But she accuses the PJ of lying to her.And Amaral- king of the unfounded accusations lied to her as well. Does she think everyone is just lying to her ? Be interesting if she tells us the lies and why they're lies won't it. Otherwise it will just be a case of ''i just think they were lying'' and we see that every day. It just means they're suspicious of whoever they want to be suspicious about...she should create a blog..

      Delete
  14. "The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann review – a moral failure
    1 out of 5 stars.

    "Netflix’s long-awaited documentary on the McCann case offered no new facts, no new insight – it didn’t even have a point of view"

    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/mar/15/disappearance-madeleine-mccann-netflix-review-moral-failure

    ReplyDelete
  15. Episode 4

    Eamonn Holmes: "I was 100% sure that they [the McCanns] shared the whole information they had. Nothing different from what they told the world happened."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous15 March 2019 at 13:48
    Episode 3

    Sandra Felgueiras: "I was 100% sure that they [the McCanns] didn't share the whole information they had. Something very different from what they told the world happened."

    Don't be shy, Sandra. 100% is as good as it gets. So tell us. Or are you just saying you 'had a feeling'. Which means you're guessing. Like an anti. very unprofessional - but good for keeping the limelight.A B-list celeb and climbing..

    ReplyDelete
  17. Summers & Swan
    We, and our book "Looking for Madeleine" are featured in the NetFlix series on the McCann case released today. Delighted to see the hard-working team at Pulse Films getting well-deserved praise for their efforts....


    https://twitter.com/summersandswan/status/1106617595560632320

    You couldn't make it up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First sniff of gravy and every nutter is chasing the train leeching off the tragedy of an innocent little girl.Anti or pro, profiting from this and trying to justify it under the banner of justice is sickening.

      Delete
  18. Anonymous15 March 2019 at 17:14

    ''"Netflix’s long-awaited documentary on the McCann case offered no new facts, no new insight – it didn’t even have a point of view"

    I refer one and all to the previous thread and, in particular, my reply to Ros when she was trying to suggest that the McCanns having nothing to do with the documentary concealed something sinister( yes, I know, so unpredictable).

    I suggested it could far simpler than that. That the investigation hasn't budged for years and nothing had led anywhere or to anyone.In short, there is nothing new. It's all been said and all been typed and all appeared on screens and all led to nowhere and nothing.The only think that might have changed is the appearance of Madeleine.She was almost 4 at the time of the abduction she is almost 16 now.The documentary couldn't possibly jog a memory. It's just a money maker for the new crime channel of Netflix. They know there's thousands sat with their knuckles whitened in excited anticipation ready to take to the message boards, social network platforms and blogs, What craftier system is there for a mass advertising campaign that doesn't cost a penny.Stir the pot, make the trailer, then let the mugs make it viral. It looks like the old antis are going to have to put their collective backs into this one and do some heavy lifting ( and twisting and turning) .

    ReplyDelete
  19. Strange how Sandra felt the complete opposite of Eamonn Holmes about the exact same thing and exact same people. I wonder what happened there..I suppose the antis will crucify Holmes for saying it but pat Sandra on the back for her 'honesty'..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although opposite, both of them say 'I was 100% sure'. Are they questioning the usefullness of their role now?

      Delete
    2. probably just confirming their original position. If they were questioning their own judgement they would say it. Or else making the statement would be pointless in the first place.

      Delete