Documentaries & Articles for Discussion

[faithlilly]

Comparatively speaking it wan't on a par with the utter rubbish they had become familiar with and was probably quite a refreshing little break for them.

It was also publicity welcomed by a couple who were determined to keep Madeleine McCann and her plight in the public domain ... something which was the last thing on the minds of the people responsible for the misinformation being produced day and daily trying to convince that Madeleine was dead.

Their aim of promoting Madeleine's case was met and her parents would be happy with that ... but it is worth noting that the programme which people were told was being made was not the one broadcast ... and not everyone was content with that ... nor should they have been.

quote
Other McCann family members were less happy. John, Gerry's brother, whose interview was broadcast, said: 'It wasn't the programme that I was told they were going to make. They've made something very different, and I am disappointed, because I'd hoped the full story was going to be told. Nevertheless I'm pleased they interviewed Jane Tanner. She said she saw Madeleine being abducted, and we want people to remember that.'
end quote
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/nov/25/bbc

I'm sure John McCann did want to see a more slanted vehicle  for his brother and sister-in-law's claims. Well done to the BBC for making a more balanced expose than some may have wanted.

[Lyall]

You're posting that Mills wasn't happy with it, so I assumed you weren't either. But Mills soon lost interest and went off to follow the Meredith Kercher case instead - he could have made his own film on the McCann case, but didn't. John McCann said "I'd hoped the full story was going to be told", but two months earlier he told Sky News (genuinely I believe) even he didn't know what the full story was. I can understand why Panorama rejected the Mills line and made the programme they did.

[Brietta]

You're posting that Mills wasn't happy with it, so I assumed you weren't either. But Mills soon lost interest and went off to follow the Meredith Kercher case instead - he could have made his own film on the McCann case, but didn't. John McCann said "I'd hoped the full story was going to be told", but two months earlier he told Sky News (genuinely I believe) even he didn't know what the full story was. I can understand why Panorama rejected the Mills line and made the programme they did.

You are correct that David Mills was upset , so much is rather evident, and not without justification imo. 

An opportunity was missed to publicise the misinterpretation of the forensic results which resulted in the lurid newspaper headlines seen in the Portuguese and British media and which might have been properly addressed long before legal action raised awareness.

People also had a right to have access to research and information which painted a different picture from the constant manipulative leaks to the press they had been subject to. Pity the powers that be at the BBC didn't think so.

I think it is regrettable that David Mills did not revisit Madeleine's case at a later date maybe some day he will in a different form, but that would be a decision entirely for him to make a judgement on. 

However imo the time for the results of his research to be broadcast without reservation was back in 2007 when people were not so aware of the media manipulation directed against Madeleine's parents and could be properly informed about it.

quote
It would, as Mills confirmed again yesterday, have scrutinised the various allegations that have been floated against the McCanns and concluded they are baseless: 'We had an investigative team looking into the story for weeks. Our assessment was that the purported DNA evidence was weak and inconclusive, while so far as we could tell the supposedly significant "discrepancies" between the stories told by the McCanns' friends about the night of Madeleine's disappearance amount to very little indeed.'
end of quote
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/nov/25/bbc

[faithlilly]

You are correct that David Mills was upset , so much is rather evident, and not without justification imo. 

An opportunity was missed to publicise the misinterpretation of the forensic results which resulted in the lurid newspaper headlines seen in the Portuguese and British media and which might have been properly addressed long before legal action raised awareness.

People also had a right to have access to research and information which painted a different picture from the constant manipulative leaks to the press they had been subject to. Pity the powers that be at the BBC didn't think so.

I think it is regrettable that David Mills did not revisit Madeleine's case at a later date maybe some day he will in a different form, but that would be a decision entirely for him to make a judgement on. 

However imo the time for the results of his research to be broadcast without reservation was back in 2007 when people were not so aware of the media manipulation directed against Madeleine's parents and could be properly informed about it.

quote
It would, as Mills confirmed again yesterday, have scrutinised the various allegations that have been floated against the McCanns and concluded they are baseless: 'We had an investigative team looking into the story for weeks. Our assessment was that the purported DNA evidence was weak and inconclusive, while so far as we could tell the supposedly significant "discrepancies" between the stories told by the McCanns' friends about the night of Madeleine's disappearance amount to very little indeed.'
end of quote
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/nov/25/bbc

So where was Mills getting his information from ? Certainly not the PJ as why would they want to make themselves look bad. The McCanns, their friends and their employees were the only people, apart from law enforcement, who had access to the information contained within those witness statements. So did they break judicial secrecy to brief Mills on the 'alleged discrepancies' and  if that was the case no wonder the BBC chose to tread a more objective path than the one Mills was being lead along.

[Mr Gray]

You are correct that David Mills was upset , so much is rather evident, and not without justification imo. 

An opportunity was missed to publicise the misinterpretation of the forensic results which resulted in the lurid newspaper headlines seen in the Portuguese and British media and which might have been properly addressed long before legal action raised awareness.

People also had a right to have access to research and information which painted a different picture from the constant manipulative leaks to the press they had been subject to. Pity the powers that be at the BBC didn't think so.

I think it is regrettable that David Mills did not revisit Madeleine's case at a later date maybe some day he will in a different form, but that would be a decision entirely for him to make a judgement on. 

However imo the time for the results of his research to be broadcast without reservation was back in 2007 when people were not so aware of the media manipulation directed against Madeleine's parents and could be properly informed about it.

quote
It would, as Mills confirmed again yesterday, have scrutinised the various allegations that have been floated against the McCanns and concluded they are baseless: 'We had an investigative team looking into the story for weeks. Our assessment was that the purported DNA evidence was weak and inconclusive, while so far as we could tell the supposedly significant "discrepancies" between the stories told by the McCanns' friends about the night of Madeleine's disappearance amount to very little indeed.'
end of quote
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/nov/25/bbc

It would, as Mills confirmed again yesterday, have scrutinised the various allegations that have been floated against the McCanns and concluded they are baseless: 'We had an investigative team looking into the story for weeks. Our assessment was that the purported DNA evidence was weak and inconclusive, while so far as we could tell the supposedly significant "discrepancies" between the stories told by the McCanns' friends about the night of Madeleine's disappearance amount to very little indeed.'

So yet more ..very strong support for the McCanns from a  very experienced journalist

[Alfred R Jones]

Any journalist who looks at this case completely objectively and who comes to the conclusion that the McCanns did not stage an abduction will obviously be accused of being a McCann backer with no ethics, isn't that true Stephen?

[stephen25000]

Now Alfred , do you accept journalists can look at the available evidence and the changing accounts of the mccanns and associates and come to the conclusion the 'abduction' was made up ?

[Eleanor]

Now Alfred , do you accept journalists can look at the available evidence and the changing accounts of the mccanns and associates and come to the conclusion the 'abduction' was made up ?

Not really, No.  It would still remain his opinion.  So let's see the cites.

[Benice]

Any journalist who looks at this case completely objectively and who comes to the conclusion that the McCanns did not stage an abduction will obviously be accused of being a McCann backer with no ethics, isn't that true Stephen?

For some bizarre reason, which no sceptic has every explained - anyone and everyone - especially those who are in the public eye or are connected to the case who show the slightest support for the McCanns - automatically  have to be 'trashed' on a personal basis.   The list is a long one.    It's been a familiar pattern throughout this case.   It is also completely irrational imo.

 

[faithlilly]

For some bizarre reason, which no sceptic has every explained - anyone and everyone - especially those who are in the public eye or are connected to the case who show the slightest support for the McCanns - automatically  have to be 'trashed' on a personal basis.   The list is a long one.    It's been a familiar pattern throughout this case.   It is also completely irrational imo.

 

I think that's true on both sides Benice.

[Lyall]

Goes right back to 2007 I believe Benice when it was perceived newspaper writers cared more about what some were saying about the parents than they did about the actual fate of the child.

[xtina]

should be interesting...

NOTE THIS IS A PRE-ORDER - THE FILM WILL BE DISPATCHED ON THE RELEASE DATE 3.4.2015

Filmed in 2014/2015, DVD PAL 16:9, By Richard D. Hall

2 Part DVD Film

Following on from his earlier series of films about the Madeleine McCann mystery, Richard D. Hall examines in a level of detail never covered before in any TV documentary, the claims that Madeleine was abducted. Numerous sightings of a man were reported to the police on different dates following the disappearance. This film examines the credibility of these sightings by looking at police witness statements, media reports and other evidence. After a thorough and extensive examination of all this evidence, the most likely conclusion is laid bare for all to see. Once you have watched the documentary, your perception of mainstream media and establishment groups such as The BBC, The Cabinet Office, Scotland Yard and British Intelligence may well need a dramatic adjustment.


http://www.richplanet.net/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=1&products_id=256

[Eleanor]

Thanks for that, Xtina.

[misty]

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Cape-Town-girl-found-17-years-after-kidnapping-20150227
Cape Town girl found 17 years after kidnapping
2015-02-27 08:30

  Cape Town - An incredible coincidence has led to a family finding their daughter 17 years after she was snatched from her sleeping mother’s arms.
 
A DNA test has confirmed the girl's identity. She was taken from her mother when she was just 3-days-old in April 1997, reported the Cape Argus.

Her biological sister started Grade 8 at the same school that the 17-year-old attends and other pupils started noticing the striking resemblance between the two.

After the two sisters struck up a friendship, her biological family invited the matric pupil over for coffee and, after seeing the likeness themselves, contacted police.

A 50-year-old woman was arrested by the Hawks at her home in Lavender Hill, reported Netwerk24. She will appear in the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court on Friday.

The arrested woman and her husband have no other children.

In a 2010 interview with the Weekend Argus, the girl's father said he would never give up hope of finding his daughter.

For now, she is in the care of the Western Cape’s social services department, says eNCA reporter Karyn Maughan.

- For legal reasons the kidnap victim in this case may not be identified. No pictures, including any of the accused or family, may be used as they may identify the victim.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is always hope.

[Mr Gray]

should be interesting...

NOTE THIS IS A PRE-ORDER - THE FILM WILL BE DISPATCHED ON THE RELEASE DATE 3.4.2015

Filmed in 2014/2015, DVD PAL 16:9, By Richard D. Hall

2 Part DVD Film

Following on from his earlier series of films about the Madeleine McCann mystery, Richard D. Hall examines in a level of detail never covered before in any TV documentary, the claims that Madeleine was abducted. Numerous sightings of a man were reported to the police on different dates following the disappearance. This film examines the credibility of these sightings by looking at police witness statements, media reports and other evidence. After a thorough and extensive examination of all this evidence, the most likely conclusion is laid bare for all to see. Once you have watched the documentary, your perception of mainstream media and establishment groups such as The BBC, The Cabinet Office, Scotland Yard and British Intelligence may well need a dramatic adjustment.


http://www.richplanet.net/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=1&products_id=256

He also has a video  that claims crop circles are caused by aliens...he might do well to sell the 2 videos as  a package