Re: BRICK Reviews

by Paddingtom 10.08.24 11:50

PeterMac wrote:Have you downloaded Kindle onto your computer. Kindle for Mac, or Kindle for Web ?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Thankyou, yes Peter. Im presuming its web as I havent got Mac. Its fine, it sits as an icon on my laptop and I crank it up to have a look at Bernts book. Im just nervous about using new things. I will get used to it. I liked the idea of having it as a file on my computer so that I could back it up and stuff, but its fine. No doubt I will find the facility enormously helpful. I have just been resistant to getting any kindle stuff because I prefer to sit and read a book. However, cross referencing is an enormous challenge with a book. This will make it easy. As with many things inlife, once weve got used to them we wonder how we ever managed without.

by **PeterMac** 14.08.24 15:55

I wonder if the change of emphasis from Thursday 3/5/7 and the events of that night into Friday 4/5/7 -
to a DAY EARLIER might prompt people who saw and heard things on Wednesday 2/5/7 but thought they were irrelevant to reconsider and realise they were important.

The PJ statements tended to skip over 2/5/7, for obvious reasons.

Just a thought.

by crusader 14.08.24 16:07

I think that is the key, things make a lot more sense when you read the statements and then relate what they say to another day.
Basically they are telling the truth but not in the right order as it happened.
So it would make perfect sense, to me anyway, to confuse when someone saw something but thought it to be irrelevant.

by Paddingtom 15.08.24 7:42

Yes I think this is a well used tactic.
It reminds me of the conversation between Andre Previn and Eric morecambe. Where Andre accused Eric of playing all the wrong notes on the piano and Eric retorted by saying he was playing all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order.

This seems to be exactly what they are doing. It is a good tactic, because it means you can tell the truth about something happening, just omit to say that it was a different day than is being asked about.

by **PeterMac** 15.08.24 7:53

A Tactic they used with the Pool Photo.
The Photo is real
The time may well be correct but is irrelevant
The DATE is wrong

and for a long time it worked. Until this forum started to get suspicious
We began to suspect it was wrong, and debated for a long time about exaclty what was wrong with it
and then came the revelation.
Nothing wrong with the PHOTO
Lots wrong with the DATE

We, and the PJ, had been looking in the wrong direction.
As they had intended.
When the history is written it will note that it was Mitchell who alerted us to that, by giving us "too much information" and insisting we looked the time which he said was wrong because it had not been changed on the internal clock - even though the UK and Portugal are in the SAME time zone
So we looked at the time, and it actually seemed ok. Lunch time-ish
Then we looked at the date, and compared with with the Mccanns OWN statements. And it didn't quite seem to match.
Then we looked further and found it was a Forgery.

Then we traced it back and found who had done the alteration, and who had brought the memory stick back to PdL, and it all fitted perfectly into place.
By looking at another DATE

They had told the truth,
Only the date had been altered

by Paddingtom 15.08.24 8:29

Perfect. Almost.

Didnt bargain for Portugese law allowing release of documents, or eagle eyed investigators!!!

by **PeterMac** 15.08.24 9:00

That REALLY Messed up the whole thing for them. Without that there would be nothing.

by Cammerigal 15.08.24 12:25

I now have a Kindle version, via Amazon UK, so very surprising. Bravo to Berndt 'the foreign detective' on his brick and getting it published and out to the public, as suppression of the truth via super injunctions and British legal bullying would have been very worrying. so yes, it could be shorter but complex lies and myths need detail to untangle them.

I also note the deafening sound of crickets from the British, Australian and American media regarding the brick and its exposure of the great abduction lie. Squeaky bum time for the media shills!

by pinkgladioli 15.08.24 12:33

PeterMac wrote:A Tactic they used with the Pool Photo.
The Photo is real
The time may well be correct but is irrelevant
The DATE is wrong

and for a long time it worked. Until this forum started to get suspicious
We began to suspect it was wrong, and debated for a long time about exaclty what was wrong with it
and then came the revelation.
Nothing wrong with the PHOTO
Lots wrong with the DATE

We, and the PJ, had been looking in the wrong direction.
As they had intended.
When the history is written it will note that it was Mitchell who alerted us to that, by giving us "too much information" and insisting we looked the time which he said was wrong because it had not been changed on the internal clock - even though the UK and Portugal are in the SAME time zone
So we looked at the time, and it actually seemed ok. Lunch time-ish
Then we looked at the date, and compared with with the Mccanns OWN statements. And it didn't quite seem to match.
Then we looked further and found it was a Forgery.

Then we traced it back and found who had done the alteration, and who had brought the memory stick back to PdL, and it all fitted perfectly into place.
By looking at another DATE

They had told the truth,
Only the date had been altered

Below is taken from an interview with Lorraine Kelly (GMB)

LK = 3 years is a long time, you still got an image of her in your head, can you still hear her, if you know what I mean

KM = yeah obviously the image we have of Madeleine we knew, So Madeleine at 4 day (corrects herself) you know know 4 years minus 9 days

by crusader 25.08.24 10:28

From the brick.
Stellander said Martin Smith said Gerry was wearing beige pants with buttons.
That is not accurate and is misleading, it was Aoife who said that in her first statement.
He also said, he wouldn't be surprised if Smith found that photo of Gerry wearing those pants and added that distinctive detail, which he could not have seen in the dark at that position.
He said he probably wanted to avoid the embarrassment of being wrong.
Stellander also say's he could be speculating.
As far as I have seen, Martin Smith never mentioned buttons on the man's pants in any of his statements.
That is misinformation in my opinion.

by Paddingtom 25.08.24 15:08

Oh Crusader, I think its just a genuine error. Surely he is allowed a tiny mistake? He's produced thousands of words and done endless work, I would imagine his brain is swimming. Please give him the benefit of the doubt. I always look to you to be the calm voice above all the shouting.

by Bluebagthepirate 25.08.24 15:24

crusader wrote:From the brick.
Stellander said Martin Smith said Gerry was wearing beige pants with buttons.
That is not accurate and is misleading, it was Aoife who said that in her first statement.
He also said, he wouldn't be surprised if Smith found that photo of Gerry wearing those pants and added that distinctive detail, which he could not have seen in the dark at that position.
He said he probably wanted to avoid the embarrassment of being wrong.
Stellander also say's he could be speculating.
As far as I have seen, Martin Smith never mentioned buttons on the man's pants in any of his statements.
That is misinformation in my opinion.

Martin never talks to Aoife? Martin is unaware of what Aoife said?

Really, really, really tiny "mistake" and not misinformation and doesn't affect the opinion Bernt Stellander puts forward.

by Ladyinred 25.08.24 15:25

#111 Paddingtom

"Above all the shouting" ... what are you implying?

This is a civilised forum with, naturally, differing opinions, perspectives and personalities but no shouting.

by crusader 25.08.24 15:33

My point was Stellander, ( I think I'll call him Bernt from now on, Stellander sounds a bit aggressive),in relation to a conversation I was having with Bluebag on the other thread about the Smith sighting.
I thought it was off topic so I came over to the Brick reviews.
I do think it reflects what is in the book because there is no real reason to say the Smith sighting is not relevant because he believes Madeleine died the day before.
That is not proof of anything, it's an opinion.

by Bluebagthepirate 25.08.24 15:42

PS... Martin Smith did mention the beige trousers in his statement. So we are nick-picking about what his 12 year daughter said at the same time about "beige trousers" "possibly with buttons" (but maybe not eh?)

Does not affect Stellander's point in the slightest, and if that's the worst "misinformation" you can find then it's looking good for the Brick.

by Bluebagthepirate 25.08.24 15:44

crusader wrote:My point was Stellander, ( I think I'll call him Bernt from now on, Stellander sounds a bit aggressive),in relation to a conversation I was having with Bluebag on the other thread about the Smith sighting.
I thought it was off topic so I came over to the Brick reviews.
I do think it reflects what is in the book because there is no real reason to say the Smith sighting is not relevant because he believes Madeleine died the day before.
That is not proof of anything, it's an opinion.

If Madeleine died evening May 3rd then where did the cadaverine come from?

by crusader 25.08.24 15:56

It wasn't about the colour of the trousers, more about the buttons, and then saying Smith saw a photo of Gerry in pants with buttons and added it to save his embarrassment.
Martin Smith has never said any such thing.
I'm not an expert on cadaverine, so I can't comment on that point.
I'm not trying to discredit Bernt in any way, but if someone is writing a book as important as this one, the details should be accurate.
If Madeleine died after high tea, would that be long enough for cadaver odour to form or whatever it does?

by pinkgladioli 25.08.24 19:43

Just to say Gerry definitely did have light coloured trousers possibly stone or pale grey coloured, he was wearing them quite possibly on the morning or afternoon of the 4th, he is captured on video clip on ch4 news which aired on the evening of the 4th May, they trousers deffo have pocket flaps and possibly a drawstring to the front, he also wearing a T-shirt which looks possibly like the brand Taylormade, re the clip it looks very much like CH4 possibly weren’t aware he was the Father of the missing child when the filmed it,
What I find strange is that for someone who was on a 7 day holiday when we have seen certain repetition of some attire worn and despite me searching through Getty images solarpix i cant find him wearing the same clothes, I wonder what happened to them and were they ever tested by Keela and Eddie?
I’m sorry I can’t do links although if anyone is interested they can find the clip on YouTube
07/05/04 CH4 Girl snatched in Portugal ( Gerry enters the clip at 1.31

Just to say Crusader I

by pinkgladioli 25.08.24 19:50

Sorry I’m pretty useless on this device just to say Crusader I re read the bit in the book re the buttons today, like everything with this case it’s maybe just came from being confused and misremembering it was the daughter who mentioned the buttons I genuinely really think Bernt hasn’t meant to tell an untruth I do get good vibes from him I really do feel he is genuine. I’d be the first to acknowledge if Im ever wrong

by Bluebagthepirate 25.08.24 19:54

crusader wrote:It wasn't about the colour of the trousers, more about the buttons, and then saying Smith saw a photo of Gerry in pants with buttons and added it to save his embarrassment.
Martin Smith has never said any such thing.
I'm not an expert on cadaverine, so I can't comment on that point.
I'm not trying to discredit Bernt in any way, but if someone is writing a book as important as this one, the details should be accurate.
If Madeleine died after high tea, would that be long enough for cadaver odour to form or whatever it does?

Honestly this is trivial.

The Smiths mentioned beige trousers and "possibly buttons".

Martin is the catch-all for the family, doesn't matter.

It's not a big deal and it does seem like you are trying to discredit Bernt because he thinks smithman is irrelevant - which it is.

by crusader 25.08.24 20:13

Bluebag wrote....
It's not a big deal and it does seem like you are trying to discredit Bernt because he thinks smithman is irrelevant - which it is.

It wasn't me who brought Bern't into the conversation, it was you.
I was just saying why I thought the Smith sighting was relevant, I never mentioned Bernt.
And just to be clear, I think the Brick is fantastic, but if I see a mistake, I will comment.

by Bluebagthepirate 25.08.24 20:32

crusader wrote:It wasn't me who brought Bern't into the conversation, it was you.

Yes because he makes complete sense.

You brought up the minor detail about the Smith statements to put a bad light on his opinion of the Smith sighting.

By the way I just reread the part of the book where he mentions the beige trousers and buttons. The emphasis is on the colour beige and not the buttons.

Page 248: "He probably wanted desperately to avoid embarrassment of being wrong; so, that was convenient, as he could have thought those pants were for holidays, beige chinos. I'm speculating of course'.

You have to ask yourself why Gerry would walk around PDL at that time with a child in his arms (dead or not) and run the risk of bumping into someone he knew - like happened 45 minutes earlier.

by crusader 25.08.24 20:57

I didn't say it was Gerry, I don't know who the Smiths saw.
I will admit I used to think it was Gerry, but because I don't know, and by the way the Smiths have never positively identified Gerry, I believe they saw "a man with a child".
By the way, I didn't bring up the minor detail to put a bad light on his opinion of the Smith sighting.
I only quoted what he himself wrote in the Brick, and only to say it's because it doesn't fit in with his theory.

by Cake Lover 25.08.24 21:09

I think now that the Smith family saw a random father and child; it's taken a while to get into my head that this pair had nothing at all to do with Madeleine or the McCann's. A lot of things and people had no connection to them, but were included to pad out their versions of what happened before and after the event.

by Clishmaclaver 25.08.24 23:18

I've just joined the forum, although I must confess that I've 'lurked' for several years now and returned to it quite frequently. I'd like to say hello to everyone, and thanks to those who've made me welcome.

I had success ordering Bernt's book after emailing modocromia editora@gmail.com and, following a few e-mails back and forth exchanging details, I did a bank transfer, as requested. Maria Esther was efficient and I received my 'brick', in Scotland, within a week.

THE NUGGETS

As Bernt gave a couple of hints re the Scottish Golden Nuggets, I thought of a few simple things to google and .. hey presto .... I've identified them, although I'll stress that I don't know them! After going into several websites, I had a 'well, I never' moment when I saw a post relating to Mr Nugget's anticipated advice to law firms. An appreciative east coast of Scotland lawyer stated: 'Can't wait ___________. Always good nuggets from you'.

The person who commented is actually someone I know, but not well. You couldn't make
it up! Rest assured, I'll not be trying to find out more from that person.

What could the connections be?

Did the Ns simply offer friendship and hospitality after meeting G and K at the PDL church? My feeling is that are of different religious persuasions, but if there's not much choice of church in PDL and if people are intent on attending, they'll take what's on offer.

Did they already know each other, despite an age gap of 19 years? G is from the south side of Glasgow and it looks as though the Ns are from the south-west side, nearby.
Did this help to establish a rapport?

Could they have friends/acquaintances in common?
Could G have friends/ex-colleagues who were neighbours of the Ns?
Could a relative/friend of G's have used the law firm services at some point?
Could it be a golf connection?
Could it relate to G's days with Glasgow Celtic?
Is J.G. of church key and car garaging somehow linked?
I'll rule out Catenians - see my comment above re religion.
Is there a sinister London connection?

I must say that if the Ns have been hoodwinked by G&K and then embroiled in their hot mess, I have sympathy for them. The whole situation is baffling to say the least.

Latest topics