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

by GreenTara 22.06.24 19:31

It’s at least 7 years old so…

by Ladyinred 22.06.24 19:39

I'm off to do the washing up!

by GreenTara 22.06.24 19:41

Ladyinred wrote:I'm off to do the washing up!

Definitely a more meaningful thing to do. I’ve switched off too

by AnneCGuedes 22.06.24 19:47

Nina wrote:
crusader wrote:I get that, but wouldn't Keela have alerted to the blood in the McCann's bedroom?
If Eddie was alerting to the cadaver odour in the blood, why didn't Keela alert to the dried blood.
She showed no interest near the wardrobe.
I've just remembered, Martin Grime said the odour could have accumulated in that area.

So there was need for blood to be present.
Maybe because Madeleine was in the blue bag in the bedroom, probably cleaned of all blood and wrapped?

If Keela didn't alert to blood near the wardrobe, it means there was no blood there. Hence what Eddie alerted to was residual odor of cadaver. Eddie alerted first near the wardrobe (the more recent odor), then behind the sofa. It seems logical to think that death occurred near the sofa and that the body was kept in the wardrobe.

by crusader 22.06.24 20:07

I can't get my head around Madeleine on a shelf in the McCann bedroom wardrobe.
Is it possible Eddie was signalling to clothes in the wardrobe that had been contaminated with cadaver odour?

by Ladyinred 22.06.24 20:11

Crusader, if you watch the doc on Quest Red, you will realise that Madeleine was abducted and never in the wardrobe confused

Switched off.

by crusader 22.06.24 20:17

I'm still watching but it is very biased.

by Cake Lover 22.06.24 20:26

They mentioned that the only fingerprints on the shutter belonged to Kate McCann, but that is of no significance at all. Why would it be? It's not all suspicious whistling

by crusader 22.06.24 20:34

That's another puzzle, why only Kate's fingerprints, did nobody else touch the window? Apparently members of the tapas group touched the blinds and Gerry went outside and closed them, where are all these missing fingerprints?

by AnneCGuedes 22.06.24 20:38

Cake Lover wrote:They mentioned that the only fingerprints on the shutter belonged to Kate McCann, but that is of no significance at all. Why would it be? It's not all suspicious

K's fingerprints on the window would have no significance if she hadn't claimed she never touched that window.

by crusader 22.06.24 20:55

The documentary is just a rehash of what has already been seen before.
Where was the new analysis?

by Cake Lover 22.06.24 20:57

The timing is interesting, isn't it, with Bern's book having recently appeared.

by Ladyinred 22.06.24 21:09

crusader wrote:The documentary is just a rehash of what has already been seen before.
Where was the new analysis?

GreenTara posted upthread that it was made more than 7 years ago. So no mention of CB presumably.

What was the conclusion, that the abductors was still at large?

by crusader 22.06.24 21:10

That's why then. laugh

by Ladyinred 22.06.24 21:12

Just digging around and, yes, at least 5 years old!

We've been duped

by Paddingtom 23.06.24 8:12

Finally got my copy of Bernts book after spending half its life in customs in coventry!!!
I know everyone is adopting different strategys of reading it....I picked out bits here and there initially that interested me and now im starting to read the second part first.

So far, thers good and bad. The bad is that there seems to be a hell of a lot of repetition and discussion about Bernts feelings towards the Mccanns. Without this, the book would have been half the size and much easier to handle (I dont want to cut my book uo incas eit becomes a collectors item!!) But, that said, its Bernts book and up to him what he puts in it, just personally I would have preferred he hadnt.
On the good side, theres a hell of a lot of well researched info which I will devour. My observation so far is that interestingly he doesnt seem to think Murat played a very big part in proceedings other than as a second patsy after sagresman failed miserably. This contrasts dramatically with RDH and many many other researchers that credit him with being involved from the very beginning and playing a huge part in proceedings. For me, it was his being summoned back to PDL urgently that pinned the fatal day as Sunday. If Bernt is right and he was insignificant then I can understand the date moving. However, he seems to put high regard on MM crying one night to bring his date forward. I struggle with this. How do we know it was MM? it could have been a sibling or child in another flat. And apparently it was only one person who reported this crying. Noone else heard it. There is also a video online where she states soemthing to the effect that she is being misrepresented. So is this crying reliable?

by crusader 23.06.24 8:31

I think if you lived above a ground floor apartment, as Mrs Fenn did, you would know the crying was coming from there.
She also said the crying stopped when the parents arrived back, she heard the patio doors open and the crying stopped.

by Ladyinred 23.06.24 9:11

Paddingtom wrote:Finally got my copy of Bernts book after spending half its life in customs in coventry!!!
I know everyone is adopting different strategys of reading it....I picked out bits here and there initially that interested me and now im starting to read the second part first.

So far, thers good and bad. The bad is that there seems to be a hell of a lot of repetition and discussion about Bernts feelings towards the Mccanns. Without this, the book would have been half the size and much easier to handle (I dont want to cut my book uo incas eit becomes a collectors item!!) But, that said, its Bernts book and up to him what he puts in it, just personally I would have preferred he hadnt.
On the good side, theres a hell of a lot of well researched info which I will devour. My observation so far is that interestingly he doesnt seem to think Murat played a very big part in proceedings other than as a second patsy after sagresman failed miserably. This contrasts dramatically with RDH and many many other researchers that credit him with being involved from the very beginning and playing a huge part in proceedings. For me, it was his being summoned back to PDL urgently that pinned the fatal day as Sunday. If Bernt is right and he was insignificant then I can understand the date moving. However, he seems to put high regard on MM crying one night to bring his date forward. I struggle with this. How do we know it was MM? it could have been a sibling or child in another flat. And apparently it was only one person who reported this crying. Noone else heard it. There is also a video online where she states soemthing to the effect that she is being misrepresented. So is this crying reliable?

Thank you for posting this.

by Bluebagthepirate 23.06.24 9:23

I think the crying and the night Kate slept in the same room as the kids are related.
I think Kate was keeping a watch on a very sick child.

by crusader 23.06.24 9:43

Kate said she slept in the children's room on the Wednesday 2nd May.
Mrs Fenn heard crying on the Tuesday 1st May and we know Kate was in the apartment at that time making a phone call.
The crying started soon after.
I believe it was the Tuesday Kate slept in madeleine's room, the night of the quiz when Gerry invited Najoua Chekaya to join them, I think Kate was annoyed with Gerry for ignoring her.

by Cake Lover 23.06.24 10:14

I don't know why that episode of the quiz needed to be told. It makes Kate McCann look jealous and juvenile, and she has invited enough criticism without adding to it.

by crusader 23.06.24 10:19

I can't remember if any of the McCann group mentioned it, I know Najoua mentioned it in her statement.

by Silentscope 23.06.24 10:21

Kate’s reaction seems to be out of Sync with the Swinger scenarios published by the Press.
She was herself an only Child, which leans more towards her wanting to be loved and appreciated by one man.
She was obviously deeply hurt by Gerry inviting Chekaya to their Table that night.
Possible that her insecurities in herself came to rise.

Returning to the Apartment she was probably hitting the Walls and kicking the Bed at that point, explaining some bruises that seemed to show up on her (and Gerry) a few days later.

Her phone call to anyone that night could have been a rant about Gerry?

In her Book Madeleine Kate switches it around and writes that Gerry went back to the Apartment first.

Obviously a lie.

by Ladyinred 23.06.24 12:30

Cake Lover wrote:I don't know why that episode of the quiz needed to be told. It makes Kate McCann look jealous and juvenile, and she has invited enough criticism without adding to it.

It was to provide an explanation as to why she and Gerry didn't share a bed that night. For the first time ever.

Was it to tend to a sick child, as suggested by BlueBag? Or if Gerry slipped out of the apartment that night, to attend to matters, she could deny knowing this if ever challenged.

by Cake Lover 23.06.24 12:55

Yes, I think Gerry slipping out of the apartment is the only feasible reason. It's such a non-sensible detail to tell people, like the purchasing of five ice creams, unless it's an alibi of sorts. The most peculiar of these titbits is washing a 'tea stain' out of pyjamas, imo.

Log in for more topics