Australian Ch7 documentary claims new lead in search for missing Madeleine McCann.

[Robittybob1]

Daily Mail getting in on the act now 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4441000/Crime-expert-suing-channel-Madeline-McCann-programme.html

"A crime expert who told documentary-makers Madeline McCann's parents could have hidden her body is suing the producers for misrepresenting her comments.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4441000/Crime-expert-suing-channel-Madeline-McCann-programme.html#ixzz4fCPJKlMW " 
She should not have opened her mouth.

[barrier]

The McCann's themselves are far from impressed with the programme,speaking in the paper version of the Star and I quote
"A spokesman for the McCanns last night dismissed the entire Aussie documentary.
He said:there was nothing new at all in the Seven Network piece.
He added that there " will be no comment from Kate and Gerry whatsoever.
"The interview with them that was carried in the programme was also some six years old so it was in a highly misleading way", end of quote.

[Robittybob1]

The McCann's themselves are from impressed with the programme,speaking in the paper version of the Star and I quote
"A spokesman for the McCanns last night dismissed the entire Aussie documentary.
He said:there was nothing new at all in the Seven Network piece.
He added that there " will be no comment from Kate and Gerry whatsoever.
"The interview with them that was carried in the programme was also some six years old so it was in a highly misleading way", end of quote.

Very cunning if that is the case.

[jassi]

Indeed, Mitchell is very good at his job.

[stephen25000]

Indeed, Mitchell is very good at his job.

He looked I'll at ease in the interview.

[G-Unit]

quoting a member of a forum which is basically run by bennett is not balanced reporting...promotong petermacs book is not balanced reporting. Shes fully entitled to do it but as you understand by now its not balanced reporting

There is a huge amount of knowledge and information about the case on CMOMM, a lot of it gathered by PeterMac and Bennett. It's not all correct and I don't agree with all their conclusions but the forum is very useful as a resource. Googling the case usually brings up that forum because they have recorded most of the important information which exists and discussed most of the questions which have emerged.

Ignoring or demonising the forum because of it's stance or it's membership is, in my opinion, a clear indication of bias. Balance involves looking at opinions from both sides, not just one side like the UK media.

[Robittybob1]

Looking at the segment starting https://youtu.be/VMCVcLE4GaU?t=1887  about the crime in the area and the people seen casing the place. 
What I have always thought was that these men were not casing the McCann apartment but another one.  Then their behaviour makes more sense.

[Mr Gray]

There is a huge amount of knowledge and information about the case on CMOMM, a lot of it gathered by PeterMac and Bennett. It's not all correct and I don't agree with all their conclusions but the forum is very useful as a resource. Googling the case usually brings up that forum because they have recorded most of the important information which exists and discussed most of the questions which have emerged.

Ignoring or demonising the forum because of it's stance or it's membership is, in my opinion, a clear indication of bias. Balance involves looking at opinions from both sides, not just one side like the UK media.

knowledge gathered by petermac and bennett should not be treated as a source as some of it is blatantly untrue...

the site does not allow information to be challenged so lies are posted as truth. Again if you think its balanced thats up to you...but again it shows your bias

[Robittybob1]

He looked I'll at ease in the interview.

That is very amatural of you.

[stephen25000]

knowledge gathered by petermac and bennett should not be treated as a source as some of it is blatantly untrue...

the site does not allow information to be challenged so lies are posted as truth. Again if you think its balanced thats up to you...but again it shows your bias

Cite

Now, there's  a surprise, that you should type that.

I would say that a former police officer knows a great deal more about police operations than you ever will.

[Mr Gray]

Cite

Now, there's  a surprise, that you should type that.

I would say that a former police officer knows a great deal more about police operations than you ever will.

cite for what

[G-Unit]

knowledge gathered by petermac and bennett should not be treated as a source as some of it is blatantly untrue...

the site does not allow information to be challenged so lies are posted as truth. Again if you think its balanced thats up to you...but again it shows your bias

If the reader has a good knowledge of the case untruths can be found on all fora and blogs. The site does allow information to be challenged, as I have done it. I never said the site was balanced, I said that balanced reporting means reporting views held by both sides, not just one of them. 

[Mr Gray]

If the reader has a good knowledge of the case untruths can be found on all fora and blogs. The site does allow information to be challenged, as I have done it. I never said the site was balanced, I said that balanced reporting means reporting views held by both sides, not just one of them.

the site does not allow information to be challenged...anyone challenging blatant lies is banned and their posts removed. There are untruths and lies.....statement such as ...blood was found in the boot of the car is accepted on their as truth and  anyone challenging such is banned

[G-Unit]

the site does not allow information to be challenged...anyone challenging blatant lies is banned and their posts removed. There are untruths and lies.....statement such as ...blood was found in the boot of the car is accepted on their as truth and  anyone challenging such is banned

That is just not true. Provided the rules are observed information can be challenged without the poster being penalised. Break the rules and consequences follow, just as they do here.

[Mr Gray]

That is just not true. Provided the rules are observed information can be challenged without the poster being penalised. Break the rules and consequences follow, just as they do here.

you are absolutely wrong....it is absolutely true..you only have to look at the posts. Here there are views from both sides...on that forum there are only sceptics...the proof is there 100%