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

by **Jill Havern** 29.06.24 6:49

Yes, please send me a private message.

by Paddingtom 29.06.24 7:54

crusader wrote:Just to throw a spanner in the works, B Stellander thinks the Smith sighting was some random with a child.
I read a statement of one of the nannies, I thought it was C Pennington? that there was one child left at the creche waiting to be picked up when the alarm was raised and she had to wait until the child had gone before she could join the search.
Could this person have been Smithman taking his child home?
But I'm sure G Amaral would have spoken to him.

Sorry Crusader, didnt mean to ignore you...got caught up in something else!!!

I have to admit, I hadnt heard this, but I cant believe Amaral wouldnt have been all over this like a rash. From day 1 he knew what was going on and was determined to get to the bottom of it. he wouldnt have let something like this slip through the net.

Just as an aside, while were talking about him, to show how dangerous the british thought he was, he says in his book that the british said they would not sign the pending Lisbon treaty unless Amaral was removed from office!!!

he was obviously doing something right, he knew how to upset all the right people.

by Honesty 29.06.24 8:09

I must admit I haven't read the book yet, although I don't mean to make excuses. This is all very intriguing. Also, does TFD think the Smith sighting is of no relevance?

by Paddingtom 29.06.24 8:21

Hi Honesty,

Bernt does not feel the Smith sighting matters. He thinks it was probably a random. He is aware of all the theories and goes with the Random. He says GM wouldnt be so stupid to wander around PDL with a corpse.

He says tghe Smiths photofit was suppressed for years because it looked too much like gerry but feels that the Smiths could have been influenced by all the pictures of GM everywhere....very possibly....

He aslo says it was pointless carrying a decoy. I 100% disagree. There was an enormous point. To show an abductor and abductee on cctv. and also to setup the inference that they escaped by sea which links nicely with Sagresman turning up. Just my opinion. ps..he also says the CCTV at Estrela de Luz was not working, which to me is a bit irrelevant. The mccanns wouldnt have known it wasnt working and Goncalo id on record as saying hes devastated that his officers didnt get to the tape before it was overwritten......not, it was broken.....that it was overwritten. so it would appear it was working, but even if it wasnt, the mmccanns woiuldnt know that and wanted to get the abductor on cctv walking towards the beach. The more I test my theory, the more Im convinced its right. humble arent i? he he,

by deepeepee 29.06.24 8:39

Paddingtom wrote:
....Just as an aside, while were talking about him, to show how dangerous the british thought he was, he says in his book that the british said they would not sign the pending Lisbon treaty unless Amaral was removed from office!!!

he was obviously doing something right, he knew how to upset all the right people....

Wow, I had not heard that before. Was that in his first book, The Truth of the Lie?

Sorry, just found it.
"According to a British correspondent, the Prime Minister personally called Stuart Prior to ask for confirmation of my dismissal. Why would the head of the British government be interested in a lowly Portuguese official? We refuse to believe the rumours going around, according to which the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon was dependent on my dismissal. Rumours, of course, nothing more. I cannot help but think that for the first time in its history, the judiciary police has dismissed a simple official from his post because of external pressure."

by crusader 29.06.24 9:41

The question is, why are the McCann's being protected, who are they and what do they know.

by Paddingtom 29.06.24 12:10

Hi deepeepee.

You posting that reference to the lisbon treaty has reminded me that GA called himself "a simple official". I find this incredibly offensive. Hes lost everything chasing these offenders. theres not many that would do that. There is absolutely nothing simple about him. Should he ever read this, I would respectfully suggest that he desists immediately from using this term and instead tries "exceptional". It is far more appropriate.

by Paddingtom 29.06.24 13:20

crusader wrote:The question is, why are the McCann's being protected, who are they and what do they know.

Most think dodgy handshakes are involved in all this. The other thing I find interesting is that consecutive governments have tried to cover this up. Started with TB, GB, DC/NC, TM,BJ, RS and will be KS too....

which suggests its not party political. The last time I can remember some scandal reaching across all the parties was old Jimmy.

perhaps you should ask what do they do?

by Ladyinred 29.06.24 14:02

Paddingtom wrote:Hi deepeepee.

You posting that reference to the lisbon treaty has reminded me that GA called himself "a simple official". I find this incredibly offensive. Hes lost everything chasing these offenders. theres not many that would do that. There is absolutely nothing simple about him. Should he ever read this, I would respectfully suggest that he desists immediately from using this term and instead tries "exceptional". It is far more appropriate.

He is a modest man and if that is how he describes himself, then it is his decision.

Maybe something got lost in translation.

by deepeepee 29.06.24 16:57

crusader wrote:The question is, why are the McCann's being protected, who are they and what do they know.

Seems to me that finding the answers to those questions would be the key to getting any kind of justice for Madeleine. its probably what makes this case so bizarre.
It surely goes beyond a cover up of an simple accident/crime. There are much more serious crimes that happen every day and they get nowhere near the amount of involvement from huges sectors of UK society and many other people.

My gut feeling is that so much has gone in to not solving this mystery (for whatever reason) that it is extremely unlikely that it will ever be resolved.

Ordinary (i.e. everyday) corruption is endemic in the so called justice system but here we are in a different level of corruption.

Sorry if that is a grim assessment but I can't see it any other way.

I would love to be proved wrong though, of course.

by Shash T 29.06.24 17:51

Jill Havern wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:How do the dogs and the hire car fit into this?
Again, I haven't read the first part of the book...but there's a chapter on the dogs starting page 462, and the Huelva Plan starts on page 476.

But from what I understand from reading the last Volume, the McCanns hired the car then went on their trip to Huelva first to clock up mileage, then secretly retrieved the body from the 'sudden impulse' hiding place, then took her in the bag to one of the locations on the Hill. I think the clocking up of the mileage was to detract from their activities on the Hill. If the PJ thought they were hiding a body, it's a hell of a big space to look.

But I don't know for sure, cos I haven't read the first bit of the book.

If I'm wrong, then Peter will correct me.

Does the F D explain how the Mc's were able to secretly retrieve the body and secretly bury her on the hill without the P J or journalists noticing?

by **Jill Havern** 29.06.24 19:50

The McCanns had made a point of doing a photoshoot very early on of them jogging up the hill - and counting how long it took them - thereafter the PJ and journalists didn't think anything of them jogging up there all the time...it was just something they usually did as an activity, so they were left alone.

Norwegian ex-military detective claims to have solved Madeleine case - Page 26 Downl102

by Shash T 29.06.24 19:55

Thank you, Jill, for replying.

by Cake Lover 29.06.24 21:39

No wonder they didn't go searching, their time was spent on plotting and planning.

by **Jill Havern** 29.06.24 21:53

I don't think they were officially under suspicion at that point anyway, were they? It was the end of May when they hid the body, and they weren't made arguidos until September.

by **sharonl** 29.06.24 23:03

Correct me if I am wrong but I seem to recall someone, maybe Goncalo Amaral, saying that they suspected them from a very early stage but played along with them for a while until they bult up more evidence.

by **Jill Havern** Yesterday at 4:15

Yes, you're right...according to 'Truth of the Lie', things were already not starting to add up on the morning of 4th May and he also wrote about tapping all their phones.

https://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/2009/06/chapter-3.html

by Shash T Yesterday at 12:46

I've posted a couple of times already and they seem to have been whooshed into the ether! If they turn up, my apologies for repeating myself.

So my news is that I have given in and bought the book/brick!

In my previous posts I tried to explain my difficulties and the remedy. (Me several hours later getting my daughter's help!) However, having slept on it, I will assume it's just me not being very computer savy and save you all the details.

I can't wait for the brick!

by **PeterMac** Yesterday at 15:06

Norwegian ex-military detective claims to have solved Madeleine case - Page 26 Img_0410

I have read the book three times
Brutally chopped it into three chunks in an attempt to overcome it
Annotated it, copied it, quoted from it, argued over it
Lain awake at night struggling to find the fatal flaw in the logic
But eventually decided that because of its length it needs serious editing.
A Précis in fact.
So after another sleepless night and several hours at the keyboard this morning,
Here it is.

SHE DIED

THEY LIED

********
Hope that helps

by Cake Lover Yesterday at 15:31

Have you put yourself through all of that to be unimpressed with the book? It's a shame if that's the case.

by **PeterMac** Yesterday at 15:59

Cake Lover wrote:Have you put yourself through all of that to be unimpressed with the book? It's a shame if that's the case.

Au contraire

It is almost incontrovertible proof of both, to a standard and in such detail that it would take a good (or unscrupulous) Defence lawyer
to insert even a reasonable doubt into either statement.
and remember that the defence has no witnesses.
There is no one who can supply a contrary scenario, no one who has ever, even after 17 years
to been able to explain how IT could have been done.
Not anyone,
Not Mendax Maximus Mitchell, nor Inventitative Journalist Clarke-Kent.
Every important aspect of their original story was destroyed within hours,
much of it in the clear sight of those watching the TV news that morning, (though not, strangely, of Clarke who was there)
And the second story was destroyed shortly after its invention, as were subsequent iterations.

The book does two things. It lists and details their lies,
AND then goes further, in part 3 to detail an impressive single handed CROP operation,
which produces unexpected results

by Cake Lover Yesterday at 16:03

Good. It might get things moving, and lure a few people into big mistakes.

by **Jill Havern** Yesterday at 16:18

Thank you Peter...this is so exciting! celebrate

by kaz Yesterday at 19:17

Nobody wants to find a dead cat - by Miri AF (substack.com)

A very plausible and interesting theory .

by Paddingtom Today at 7:28

Jill and I have discussed my post no. 611 and she has put my mind at rest about revealing too much.
At this stage in the story, it probably doesnt matter.

So I have made a decision to give you a clue as I know it can be frustrating not knowing.
However, can I suggest that it may be a good idea to just say youve twigged what Im saying rather than announcing it, just incase and also to allow others to do their own detection? perhaps there is an appropriate emoji so we know youve worked it out?

Also please remeber, it is my guess that it is a porky....Ive tried to verify it, but Im whistling in the wind so this may all be completely pointless but I dont want to sway you either way, you must make up your own mind... can you capture some information or is there nothing to see here

But if you enjoy a mystery, see if you can see what Im talking about on page 783. .

Log in for more topics