Cutting Edge: Channel Four at 9pm in UK

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sophie

Sophie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
1,033
Reaction score
106
This may be a duplication of another post by someone else but I have scanned and can't find one and I'm rushing out in a sec. Anyway, just in case anyone didn't know, Channel Four have a Cutting Edge Documentary on Madeleine at 9 this pm. It will be repeated on 4+1 at 10 and will almost certainly be available on Four on Demand on C4's website.

Please will a moderator delete if this has been covered elsewhere and apologies if so: I'm in a frantic rush today.
 
Sophie said:
This may be a duplication of another post by someone else but I have scanned and can't find one and I'm rushing out in a sec. Anyway, just in case anyone didn't know, Channel Four have a Cutting Edge Documentary on Madeleine at 9 this pm. It will be repeated on 4+1 at 10 and will almost certainly be available on Four on Demand on C4's website.

Please will a moderator delete if this has been covered elsewhere and apologies if so: I'm in a frantic rush today.
Click to expand...

Could be interesting..to see which version there using today :)

I know they altered this doc after the Amaral one lol
 

So.....here comes yet ANOTHER lie....

Is anyone spinning yet after the last couple of weeks "revelations"?

In this documentary it shows Gerry and Jez on the right hand side of the path that goes to the road. In Tanners and Jez pictures they drew for the Pj..Gerry and Jez were on the LEFT hand side of it.

SECONDLY

Martin Smith says in his report that the man he saw was Caucasian with short brown hair. In the video in the doc he does not have short hair and doesnt particularly look caucasian either. Martin Smith said the child had her head on the persons right shoulder. In the documentary the child is on the left and does not have her head on the shoulder.

THIRDLY

Gerry says he crossed the road to talk to Jez. Yet in Jez statement that was written just 4 days AFTER the events he said that it was HE not Gerry who crossed the road for the conversation.

FOURTHLY

On the night of the "kidnapping " one of the witness statements(Sylvia Batistutia (sp) said Tanner claimed she saw a man "possibly" carrying a child. And yet in this documentary...there was no doubt that it was a child she saw just happening to wear the same pjs as Madeleine no less.

And this is only for starters..

I can see this documentary is going to cause a lot of problems..because under OFCOM rules your only meant to report things that are factual..and if there saying THIS is factual..then..there previous statements to the Pjs were not and there trying to portray a scene or event that didnt happen as they are trying to portray it. OFCOM is going to receive so many complaints thats a fact and they DO have to investigate it.

 

Weird...so they hired these people for the reconstruction which was supposedly the reason for the trip back there..so...where was it? Scared they would make too many more errors if they did it?

They did say about Martin Smiths sighting and that he claimed it looked like Gerry. They said that the Pjs have cleared Gerry regarding this as his friends claimed he was in the bar with them at 9.50. However..if you read the statements by the barstaff i think it was by around 9.30 all of them except i believe it was Diane Webster had in fact LEFT the bar so how COULD they confirm he wasnt the Man Smith and his family saw? This is one area where they messed up big time in the investigation. They listened to the parents and the friends rather than treating them all as suspects. In addition ( though this wasnt to do with the show ) one of the witnesses said they heard someone shouting for "Maddie" at 9ish ( not 10) and then with the bar staff saying ( i believe) that around 9.30 they knew she was supposedly missing i dont even get where the 10pm thing came into it. Its one thing thats confused me since i saw it a couple of weeks ago. She says she went running in the bar shouting ...and yet the barman said they had all gone by then.
 

Kate also said in the documentary that Cuddlecat was found on the pillow...

however
A couple of months after the "abduction" Kate gave a interview to one of the Sunday papers..and in it she said..she knew soons she went in the apartment that Madeleine had been kidnapped because Cuddlecat was on a high shelf and she knew that Madeleiene couldnt put it up there..so the kidnapper must have. It always seemed kinda weird that someone would kidnap a child and take there child from them if it helped to keep them quiet..
 
badhorsie said:
Absolutely stunk of Damage Limitation to me.
Very interesting review in The Times...


http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6243550.ece
:clap:
Click to expand...


Ouch :D

Its not on the front of any of the dailies tomorrow - and i fully expected it to be front page on them all..

Somehow...it feels like the tide is finally turning slightly..

Btw dunno about damage limitation...it always seem that in every interview they drop themselves further and further in it lol
 
Isabella said:

Kate also said in the documentary that Cuddlecat was found on the pillow...

however
A couple of months after the "abduction" Kate gave a interview to one of the Sunday papers..and in it she said..she knew soons she went in the apartment that Madeleine had been kidnapped because Cuddlecat was on a high shelf and she knew that Madeleiene couldnt put it up there..so the kidnapper must have. It always seemed kinda weird that someone would kidnap a child and take there child from them if it helped to keep them quiet..
Click to expand...
Yes, I recall that distinctly. That was one of the first pieces of evidence I ever heard. She knew Madeleine was abducted because of where she found Cuddlecat.

Isabella said:
This is one area where they messed up big time in the investigation. They listened to the parents and the friends rather than treating them all as suspects
Click to expand...
Absolutely right.

Badhorsie: That review was amazing! :woohoo:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6243550.ece

This presents a problem for them, and for documentary-makers and journalists. The dripfeed of information (like the new suspect) and access to the McCanns is controlled by the family and their press representative Clarence Mitchell. The journalism of the Cutting Edge documentary was thus skewed to whatever the McCann’s agenda was. It was hard to see what material Cutting Edge had uncovered itself: it seemed to just record whatever the McCanns wanted us to see.

Oprah quite reasonably asked them how their marriage had survived the last two awful years. The documentary, despite its access and illusion of family intimacy, didn’t dare ask such things. When I asked Mitchell and the documentary-maker the same question at a screening on Wednesday, I received a curt dismissal: that wasn’t the intention of Madeleine Was Here, apparently. But that doesn’t mean my question, or indeed any question is invalid just because it doesn’t fit with the McCann/Mitchell agenda, especially when TV cameras have been invited into their home to show how jolly nice everything is under the circumstances.
 
badhorsie said:
Absolutely stunk of Damage Limitation to me.
Very interesting review in The Times...


http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6243550.ece
:clap:
Click to expand...

Thanks for that link, badhorsie. It was a very astute review.

I remember also Kate saying that Cuddlecat was on a high shelf and that was how she knew immediately that Madeleine had been abducted. It was very well publicized and repeated.

In the official crime scene photos, I believe Cuddlecat is on the pillow.

Damage control, indeed.
 

Someone brought this up elsewhere..and..IMO its a very IMPORTANT point..

From the documentary

http://textusa.blogspot.com/2009/05/kate-mccann-confesses-finally.html

Kate McCann, in “Cutting Edge”:

"I took my check about 10 o’clock, and went in through the, sliding patio doors, and I just stood actually, and I thought Oh, all quiet… and to be honest I might of, been tempted to turn around, then but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door, where the 3 children were sleeping, was open much further than we had left it, I went to close it to about here…"



So..the door was open further than when THEY had left it| ?? She had left the apartment 90 mins earlier and hadnt been back so the we has to be when they went to the bar. Er why would she be so shocked about the fact that the door was open further than when they "left" it 90 mins previously IF Gerry and Oldfield had been in to see the kids as they claimed? If they had been in there of course the door would be open more than when "they" had left it..so her for to be shocked..and think the door shouldnt have been moved differently to when they shut it...suggests...that the checks by Gerry and Oldfield did NOT happen..so...what was Gerry doing for so long when Kate thought he was maybe watching footie? By the looks of it he wasnt looking at his children thinking how beautiful they was as he claimed...
 
Many things in the documentary disturbed me!

1. Jane Tanner & Gerry were disputing which side of the road he was on which ties in with the contradiction of whether Gerry or Jez crossed the road
In the Oprah show Gerry was quite sure of where he was!

2. Tanner said that Kate was wondering what was keeping Gerry, was he watching football. The natural thing for a friend passing would have been to say to Gerry something like "Hurry up Kate is wondering what is keeping you" Yet Tanner passes quietly & neither Gerry nor Jez see her?? I don't think so!
BTW made me ill to hear it unashamedly said that Tanner was going to check on her sick child, what parent leaves a sick child never mind alone in an apartment in a foreign country? & people question why these people have a bond that ties them to silence? LOL! They are inextricably linked in their child neglect, if nothing else!

3. There is no way that Tanner could have seen the alleged abductor in detail, the road was very dark on the night in question even with the lighting for the filming it would have been impossible to make out details like pyjama colouring etc. & remember that at first Tanner saw a man carrying "a bundle" hence the name Bundleman. Later her description became so detailed as to have us believe that this child being carried was wearing Madeleines pyjamas!

4. Did anyone notice the large center island in the McCanns kitchen? It contained a double wine rack which was totally empty! So why have one? No harm in a few bottles of wine being in there but of course the McCanns who left their kids to drink a lot in PDL couldn't let the public see alcohol in their home could they? Whole thing was so staged the wine bottles were conspicuous by their absence!

5. Kate appeared very well coordinated in clothes & jewellery immediately after the "disappearance" of Madeleine when anyone would have excused her for looking dishevelled so what the heck was with her on the Oprah show? Mismatched clothes, like who wears black/white/pink/brown (shoes) LOL! Again totally staged to make her look as bad as possible!

So many other excellent points have been made here that I do not need to repeat such as the timeline for checks being totally OFF!
 
Barnaby said:
Many things in the documentary disturbed me!

1. Jane Tanner & Gerry were disputing which side of the road he was on which ties in with the contradiction of whether Gerry or Jez crossed the road
In the Oprah show Gerry was quite sure of where he was!

2. Tanner said that Kate was wondering what was keeping Gerry, was he watching football. The natural thing for a friend passing would have been to say to Gerry something like "Hurry up Kate is wondering what is keeping you" Yet Tanner passes quietly & neither Gerry nor Jez see her?? I don't think so!
BTW made me ill to hear it unashamedly said that Tanner was going to check on her sick child, what parent leaves a sick child never mind alone in an apartment in a foreign country? & people question why these people have a bond that ties them to silence? LOL! They are inextricably linked in their child neglect, if nothing else!

3. There is no way that Tanner could have seen the alleged abductor in detail, the road was very dark on the night in question even with the lighting for the filming it would have been impossible to make out details like pyjama colouring etc. & remember that at first Tanner saw a man carrying "a bundle" hence the name Bundleman. Later her description became so detailed as to have us believe that this child being carried was wearing Madeleines pyjamas!

4. Did anyone notice the large center island in the McCanns kitchen? It contained a double wine rack which was totally empty! So why have one? No harm in a few bottles of wine being in there but of course the McCanns who left their kids to drink a lot in PDL couldn't let the public see alcohol in their home could they? Whole thing was so staged the wine bottles were conspicuous by their absence!

5. Kate appeared very well coordinated in clothes & jewellery immediately after the "disappearance" of Madeleine when anyone would have excused her for looking dishevelled so what the heck was with her on the Oprah show? Mismatched clothes, like who wears black/white/pink/brown (shoes) LOL! Again totally staged to make her look as bad as possible!

So many other excellent points have been made here that I do not need to repeat such as the timeline for checks being totally OFF!
Click to expand...

What an excellent point about the kitchen island.

And excellent point about Kate's appearance as well--especially since Oprah is perhaps the most styled and "presented" person on the planet--as well as her guests.

Just. Pitiful.
 
Texana said:
What an excellent point about the kitchen island.

And excellent point about Kate's appearance as well--especially since Oprah is perhaps the most styled and "presented" person on the planet--as well as her guests.

Just. Pitiful.
Click to expand...

After the past couple of weeks i am beginning to think the McCanns actually want to be charged..that or there even more stupid than i thought. Every time they open there mouths there slipping up again.
 
Isabella said:
After the past couple of weeks i am beginning to think the McCanns actually want to be charged..that or there even more stupid than i thought. Every time they open there mouths there slipping up again.
Click to expand...

I don't think they want to be charged Isabella, I think they just think that they have got away with so much thus far & think they can continue to fool the world & gather more bucks! Sad thing is many people have felt sorry for them after those programmes & that was the general idea. There are many who do not wish to see what is staring them in the face - simple things like the empty wine rack or the pathetic way that Kate dressed for the Oprah show, (pathetic being just what she wanted to portray) all deliberate - shows just how conniving & manipulating they can be!
 
I know Channel Four are meant to be struggling financially but they are repeating this again at 10 pm on More Four today...

Don't want anyone to miss it, do they?
 
Sophie said:
I know Channel Four are meant to be struggling financially but they are repeating this again at 10 pm on More Four today...

Don't want anyone to miss it, do they?
Click to expand...

Milking every penny of their investment, I suppose.

(And I love your little girl's rabbit quote. When my sister was born, one of my brothers told the other one, "You can have this one. I've already got a sister.")
 
Sophie said:
I know Channel Four are meant to be struggling financially but they are repeating this again at 10 pm on More Four today...

Don't want anyone to miss it, do they?
Click to expand...


They may be struggling even more if Ofcom fine them for making a documentary that wasnt despicting factual images as per statements made to the Pjs.

Interesting thing tho..since the documentary more and more columnists are writing unflattering things...except Lorraine Kelly who probably hasnt read one single thing thats not been in the Sun.
 
Texana said:
Milking every penny of their investment, I suppose.

(And I love your little girl's rabbit quote. When my sister was born, one of my brothers told the other one, "You can have this one. I've already got a sister.")
Click to expand...

LOL! Brilliant. Little kids are just wonderful :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 103 more.
Total: 3,317 (members: 104, guests: 3,213)

Online statistics

Members online
104
Guests online
3,213
Total visitors
3,317
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,290
Messages
17,966,750
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top