Christian Brueckner: To be or not to be

From Bernt:

Comment to the CB thread.

1) I have not been in contact with Amaral. 
2) I heard through a contact of his close friend that he agrees on the hill.
3) back in Amaral's days he was contacted from the top saying it wasn't a problem if the case was shelved as unsolved. It's political. It's out of bounce, a no go zone. 
4) time will tell if my new stuff will make them reopen the investigation of Maddie's accidental death in apt 5a on May the 2nd 2007.
5) as long as mainstream media is not allowed to open the "brick of worms", the pressure might not be enough. But I think there's a chance after next podcast.
6) the reason OpG don't ask to dig and put a dent in the book if I'm wrong by 3 feet to 10.000 miles, is because if something is initiated on the hill as a response to my book, then the shit hits the fan, which is THE TIMELINE I AM PRESENTING.

That is the reason for the silence from team mcc. Of course I could be right regarding the grave as well, but the timeline is enough for them to act like they do.

The sooner the shit hit's the fan the better as far as I'm concerned.

Bernt's upcoming podcast with James English promises to be exciting  

He said in an email to me today that his critics "had better glue their socks on!"

Jill Havern wrote:Bernt's upcoming podcast with James English promises to be exciting  

He said in an email to me today that his critics "had better glue their socks on!"

Can't wait! But we need action!

And yes, even Amaral said in 2012 that the hill area should be more investigate.

I hope so.
 I bought the brick thinking it was the proof of what happened to Madeleine and looking forward to Bernt later on, showing proof of the McCann's turning up on Rocher Negra with video and camera evidence.
I admit I am a bit peeved that those of us who bought the book didn't get all Bernt's information and findings in it.
Apparently the podcasts are to reveal more than was in the book and for free. 

Jill Havern wrote:From Bernt:

Comment to the CB thread.

1) I have not been in contact with Amaral. 
2) I heard through a contact of his close friend that he agrees on the hill.
3) back in Amaral's days he was contacted from the top saying it wasn't a problem if the case was shelved as unsolved. It's political. It's out of bounce, a no go zone. 
4) time will tell if my new stuff will make them reopen the investigation of Maddie's accidental death in apt 5a on May the 2nd 2007.
5) as long as mainstream media is not allowed to open the "brick of worms", the pressure might not be enough. But I think there's a chance after next podcast.
6) the reason OpG don't ask to dig and put a dent in the book if I'm wrong by 3 feet to 10.000 miles, is because if something is initiated on the hill as a response to my book, then the shit hits the fan, which is THE TIMELINE I AM PRESENTING.

That is the reason for the silence from team mcc. Of course I could be right regarding the grave as well, but the timeline is enough for them to act like they do.

In other words 6) ^^ means that the cover up will be blown?

Surely the new up coming podcast is a result of new info that has happened as a result of the release of the book, I bought Bernt’s book based on his theory and I’m more than prepared to let any updated news or relevation’s take there course when the time is right for Bernt and not before 
It’ll happen when it happen’s 

I’ve found personally when dealing with evil schemers when they are quiet is the time when they are more dangeous and up to no good

pinkgladioli wrote:Surely the new up coming podcast is a result of new info that has happened as a result of the release of the book, 

Indeed.

The wheels continue to turn.

The screws continue to tighten.

CaKeLoveR wrote:

Will there also be an interview with Sonia in October? I think she is great and better than Pat.

How did this thread turn into another Brick thread?

Pinkgladioli makes a very good point about the new podcast being due to new information since the book launch.
I didn't think of that. 

Jill Havern wrote:From Bernt:

THE TIMELINE I AM PRESENTING.

That is the reason for the silence from team mcc. Of course I could be right regarding the grave as well, but the timeline is enough for them to act like they do.

I undertand that BS is presenting the timeline of the discovery of M's death by her parents and what followed. I personnaly always thought M didn't see the sun rise on May 3, but this timeline is  speculative, no confession, no evidence.
It cannot substitute the group's timeline, taken up by Joao Carlos, very concerned to be politically correct, and for lack of reconstitution, which is that of the announcement of M's disappearance by her mother, not of M's disappearance, no matter how it happened.

From Bernt:

Please write to AnneG from me on the same thread.
AnneG:
Why are you initiating in arguments of things you haven't read? Like how I came to my timeline....
You have constantly taken subtle digs without knowing anything about my work. You have diverted every single thread about my book into something completely off topic, and often to your own French book.
You are without a doubt extremely knowledgeable about the case, but what is it with my book you cannot get yourself to actually read and find out how I got to my conclusions.
It almost seems personal, and you've never even met me.
Everyone here knows you have a bias. I have nothing against critique, as long as it's rooted in the actual work, not speculations.
You have on three different occasions mentioned the high walls of the cemetery, but when I get a photo shown there of the easy climb between the gates, then you step in and say the gate is always open. Doesn't make sense, this behavior, unless you are bitter for whatever reason.
You can't blame me for you not having translated your book into  English.
It's blatantly obvious what you have constantly been doing for months.
This is the reason I'm not becoming a member on this forum, as I'm done arguing over nothing, with someone who invents or assumes things from a book they haven't even  read and refuses to read.
I'm sure your book is brilliant. I just don't care about other people's work, as I only focus on words from the police files and the persons involved in the case.
What's wrong with that.
I'm doing my puzzle, and they can do theirs.

"Everyone here knows you have a bias". Unless Bernt has asked every one here if they agree with this statement and they have informed him that they do agree with it, I am very sorry to say that I think it is wrong of him to make such a claim.

From Bernt:

this to Honesty:
You're right. I should rather have written that everyone here knows AnneG has her own book and is per definition biased. 
However, it's absurd when someone in her position debates, critiques, assumes about its content and constantly takes digs at a book she hasn't bothered to read. 
I'm tempted to copy what AnneG wrote to my publisher, but I don't want to make this something more than it is, just to show someone's true color.

Anne,

Is it true you haven't read the book?

To Bernt:
Chill! most people here are 100% behind you and all your efforts.   Some are just impatient and have been trying to get to the bottom of this for a very, very long time and some, well...

To Jill: 
have you seen the 1970 (excellent!) film by Joseph Losey, "The Go Between" 

deepeepee wrote:To Jill: 
have you seen the 1970 (excellent!) film by Joseph Losey, "The Go Between" 

No I haven't, but I feel I should have had a starring role.  

Unfortunately, Anne emailed me last night to say she was leaving the forum and I've replied asking her to reconsider.

Despite Anne and Bernt's differences they are both welcome here because of everyone's 17-year pursuit of the truth for Maddie. Anne has been a valued member of the 'Maddie community' for nearly two decades, and it was great when she registered here.

We can't all be expected to agree with each other...but Bernt does have a 'right to reply' to his critics, even by proxy. I have said before that, although I'd like to see Bernt register here, I was under no illusion that he would do so at this point in the proceedings.

I have a copy of Anne's book but my Schoolboy French is simply not up to the task.
Other than typing it out and putting it through DeepL I can't think of a way to read it
which is a shame, because I value different points of view and interpretations.


Members may begin to understand why I included this warning on my latest Chapter

"HEALTH WARNING.  Some people may find this Chapter intellectually challenging, distressing, or “triggering”.    
If you are prone to feelings of this sort, please DO NOT READ IT.  
You are of course free to criticise and deny its content without reading or understanding it, in accordance with modern Social Media norms

CaKeLoveR wrote:These cell mates are honourable, decent chaps, aren't they?

Clearly considered to be more reliable than the “incredibly unreliable” dogs - most odd huh?

Jill,

I am really pleased that you asked AnneG to reconsider leaving the forum. And I hope you do stay, Anne

I think she has a lot of valuable knowledge about this case, she has spent a long time analyzing the available data and she has written a book on the subject [that I have not read]. And she has, of course, made many interesting contributions to this forum.

She is entitled to have her own opinions and she is entitled to challenge the theory of Bernt. 

I can understand Bernt being hacked off at people looking for holes to pick in his theory - but that is the way things are, and should be: a theory has to stand up to counter examples, highlighted inaccuracies and possible ambiguities.

Furthermore, AnneG is a member of this forum, Bernt is not a member: he says he does not want to be a member. And I can understand this as it is more practical for him to reflect on comments and take time to counter the counters rather than play immediate 'yes/yes but/maybe/no' ping pong with people who have valid [and some, invalid] queries/concerns. 

Nevertheless a point to consider: although Bernt does not want to be a forum member, he has asked Jill to act as his proxy to post his comments on the forum to forum members [specifically to AnneG]. Will Anne G, if she leaves the forum, have to find her own proxy forum member to answer Bernt's comments?

I am a big fan of Bernt. I have read the brick and I think his theory adds great value to our understanding of the case. Is it THE answer to the puzzle? It might be but, if so, it will have to be robust and stand up to detailed scrutiny.

I think the McCann case is extremely interesting. There is so much 'warm' agreement amongst most members regarding what probably happened in general terms but with some 'cold' disagreement and differences of opinion regarding specific details. As things stand, there is no single, absolute truth and those members who choose not to believe in one of the alleged particular truth theories should not, in my opinion, be demonized or ostracized. And as a result thereof, maybe feel forced to leave the forum.

Goncalo Amaral, AnneG, Pat Brown, Richard D Hall, PeterMac and Bernt [in no particular order] have all done so much hard work and have produced very interesting, challenging and positive stuff in searching for the truth. All in general agreement and all with individual specific disagreements: I can excuse a bit of observer bias.

We all want to now what happened in as much detail as possible. And, I think, we want to encourage sensible debate rather than stifle it and have none. [Everything must fit with inner party dogma]

And semi off-topic - talking about people who are no longer welcome on the forum [from what I think I picked up a couple of weeks ago on the forum] what is the story about Verdi? That bypassed me completely.

Maybe Bernt and Anne can reconcile their differences in Private?

I wish both of them well.

Great post pablowski, thank you  

Bernt didn't specifically ask me to post on his behalf, but he was commenting to me in response to members here so I asked him if I should just post his comments so the individual member could respond. 

As for Verdi - much valued, much missed, BUT I don't miss the constant bluddy drama on the open forum  

Peace  

I miss Verdi's sense of humour, and the snail. I can't find it anywhere.

He was the architect of his own downfall...and almost mine and almost the fate of this forum.

I've moved on.

If people don't like it here, then you know what to do.

But please let me know before I have to pay next week for yet another year.

Keep on topic.

This is a Bruckner thread, not a Brick thread and not a Verdi thread.

(eta: sorry, touchy subject)

Bluebagthepirate wrote:Anne,

Is it true you haven't read the book?`

It's not true.
I phoned the publisher in order to know in what language I should read it to minimise the number of lost in translations.

AnneCGuedes wrote:

Bluebagthepirate wrote:Anne,

Is it true you haven't read the book?`

It's not true.
I phoned the publisher in order to know in what language I should read it to minimise the number of lost in translations.

Anne, which language did you read it in?

(sorry Jill, I know this is the Brueckner thread, just curious to know    )

English, as I was told the Portuguese version was the product of two translations (from Norwegian to English and from English to Portuguese). 
GA book's english version is also the product of two translations (from Portuguese to French and from French to English). This one I read in Portuguese.

OK, thanks. 

Can you spot the Olive Press calling card and €50 Note in this picture?

Explanations to: LG Braunschweig