Re: Norwegian ex-military detective claims to have solved Madeleine case

by Ladyinred 01.06.24 22:49

Don't apologise for being sceptical. I haven't read the book, so am reliant on those who have (and am grateful to them). Maybe when they are online next they can provide some explanations to your questions.

by crusader 01.06.24 23:03

Posts 102 to 108 on this thread discuss the secret signature.

by JohnyT 01.06.24 23:18

crusader wrote:Posts 102 to 108 on this thread discuss the secret signature.

..but it doesn't. It's merely hearsay that he got it from some secret society (the handshake etc). Come on, it's too James Bond'ish, saying that the emails were ended with a secret signature. Sorry but I'm not convinced and I certainly don't think 'the team' will be worried about this. Surely showing the police the photos/videos would be the first port of call?

by crusader 01.06.24 23:24

That's all the info I have on the subject at the moment, I'm very curios about the signature as well.
I should get my copy of the book next week with any luck, so I'm hoping it becomes clearer.

by Cake Lover 01.06.24 23:47

I'd like to know how book sales are doing.

by **Jill Havern** 02.06.24 6:46

crusader wrote:Posts 102 to 108 on this thread discuss the secret signature.

PeterMac already answered it with several clues a few pages back when it first came up.

by Bluebagthepirate 02.06.24 7:16

Jill Havern wrote:
crusader wrote:Posts 102 to 108 on this thread discuss the secret signature.
PeterMac already answered it with several clues a few pages back when it first came up.

Does the book explicitly say what it was? Or was it a guess by Peter?

by **Jill Havern** 02.06.24 7:29

It says it in the book.

by Ladyinred 02.06.24 7:31

PeterMac wrote:AND he is going to submit to a cross examination by Natasha tomorrow.

Update: Today Sat 11/5
Due to start soon. Update from Natasha later.

Did this event take place?

I've looked, but nothing. Not being reported by Natasha either.

by Honesty 02.06.24 7:52

Who is Natasha, please, and how can I get to posts 102 to 108. Sorry, I'm not very adept at using forums.

by **Jill Havern** 02.06.24 7:59

Honesty wrote:Who is Natasha, please, and how can I get to posts 102 to 108. Sorry, I'm not very adept at using forums.

Natasha Donn is one of the best journalists in Portugal who accurately reports on the McCann case...she works for 'Portugal Resident'.

The posts you ask for are on page 6 of this thread

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t17551p100-norwegian-ex-military-detective-claims-to-have-solved-madeleine-case#482936

by **Jill Havern** 02.06.24 9:14

Ladyinred wrote:
PeterMac wrote:AND he is going to submit to a cross examination by Natasha tomorrow.

Update: Today Sat 11/5
Due to start soon. Update from Natasha later.
Did this event take place?

I've looked, but nothing. Not being reported by Natasha either.

It did. A two-hour interview.

They have a bit of 'history', which TFD writes about in the book.
He doesn't name some people in the book but those of us who've been following the case will know who he means.

by Honesty 02.06.24 11:57

Thank you, Jill, for the info re Natasha. I presume she is on Facebook and Twitter, neither of which I 'do' - yet. Thank heavens for these non UK reporters. I'm thinking also of the Australian lady (whose name I forget) and Sandra Felgueiras.

by Liz Eagles 02.06.24 16:19

JohnyT wrote:I'm not convinced that the McCann 'team' would be befriended by a stranger so easily and I certainly don't feel they would be worried about an email threat! Seriously? They would send someone just to 'check on things' because of an email threat? They've probably been threatened lots of times over the years. How did this man know the 'secret signature' for a start? I'm not doubting the years of work and study this man has put in btw. Sorry for sounding sceptical...

If you aren't sceptical there is something wrong. Across the years there have been people attached to this case and to the forum who have proved themselves to be charlatans. I could name the main ones but it would only serve to invite bad mouthing, shock horror, misguided loyalty to a tenet and a host of bonkers across various platforms.

TFD may well turn out to be a hoaxer. The forum is relying on PeterMac to validate.

by **Jill Havern** 02.06.24 16:56

So what you're saying is:

1. You want someone else to pay for the book
2. So that you don't have to pay for it
3. So you don't have to read it
4. So you don't have to validate it for yourself

But you're quite happy to read the comments on this thread to get the gist of the book that you don't want to pay for so you can discredit it without having to read it...

Is that about right? thinking

by **PeterMac** 02.06.24 19:04

A digital version is in production, so people won’t have to buy the brick, and pay the shipping, but will able to pay for a download.
I am hoping - and have been asking Bernt - that it will be KINDLE Compatible, so that the Search engine and COPY function work as normal.

Other forum members also have a copy. see up-thread

by JohnyT 02.06.24 20:06

Jill Havern wrote:So what you're saying is:

1. You want someone else to pay for the book
2. So that you don't have to pay for it
3. So you don't have to read it
4. So you don't have to validate it for yourself

But you're quite happy to read the comments on this thread to get the gist of the book that you don't want to pay for so you can discredit it without having to read it...

Is that about right?

If that's directed at me then I will answer in the only way possible. I always read other peoples' reviews before buying anything. Is that wrong? I never said anything about not buying it but money is tight, so I have to be selective. Oh, and being sceptical is different than discrediting something. You even said yourself that you were waiting for PeterMac to read it and inform the forum, plus he sent you one for free, so please don't lambast me for being sceptical AND thrifty.

EDIT: Fair enough, just seen your response but maybe LizEagles is in the same frame of mind?

by **Jill Havern** 02.06.24 20:17

It was in response to Liz actually as my post was directly underneath.

by **Jill Havern** 02.06.24 20:23

I'm sure she'll give me her point of view.

by JohnyT 02.06.24 20:27

How will the website work then for viewing the footage/photos? Will it be a special link from the book? Will it be a subscription? Is there a timescale ?

by **Jill Havern** 02.06.24 20:29

I have no idea at the moment, but Peter is in contact with Bernt so maybe he'll be told at some point.

by Keelafreeze 02.06.24 21:22

Just adding my tuppence with regards to BS’s date of Madeleine’s passing as Wednesday 2nd.
If the police first in the apartment said there was a strong smell of bleach and that was from forensically cleaning the place then it had to have been done fairly recently and not earlier in the week.
I don’t have the book (yet) and he may cover that issue, but it does lend credence to his hypothesis.

by **PeterMac** 02.06.24 21:28

Being sceptical and critical is GOOD
See my post 31/5 at 8;46 2 pages back re the cadaverine and how that could possibly fit with finding M dead on 2/5/7
AND hiding her body where Kate told us they did ‘on the cold stone slab…’
So i did some more scientific research in the medical and Pathology journals and found that it fits perfectly.
I did not dismiss it because I THOUGHT it was impossible, but neither did i accept it uncritically because I BELIEVED it
Question everything. Test theories to destruction.
This is a criminal case and everything MUST be “Beyond a reasonable doubt”

Leave no Tern unstoned,

by Cake Lover 02.06.24 21:47

The only aspect which must not be questioned, or even doubted (how very dare we?) is that the McCann's are innocent. Totally blameless. Clarrie told us so.

by crusader 02.06.24 21:50

I thought the strong smell of bleach in 5a was a tabloid myth.

Log in for more topics