Re: BRICK Reviews

by Amy Dean 06.09.24 10:53

Pat is okay for me when her videos are pre-recorded. The live ones for patreons only are frequently a shambles with photos and links going missing.

by Justice for Maddie 06.09.24 11:18

Does anyone know the date of the new BS interview?

by **PeterMac** 06.09.24 18:53

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

by Bluebagthepirate 07.09.24 9:32

Just had an email from Amazon recommending "The Sudden Impulse".

How do they know?

by Cake Lover 07.09.24 10:15

They know everything, it seems to me. Our lives are not our own.

by Ladyinred 07.09.24 10:21

Have you ordered Madeleine related books previously, or read/posted reviews on the site?

by Bluebagthepirate 07.09.24 14:17

Ladyinred wrote:Have you ordered Madeleine related books previously, or read/posted reviews on the site?

Absolutely not.

They have obviously read my cookies on all websites I visit.

It stinks a bit.

by Nina 07.09.24 14:29

Amy Dean wrote:I will be honest and say that I wonder if Pat has a drink problem. It's embarrassing at times to listen to her.

She is very hyper for sure with a lot of facial grimacing and hand waving. I often get lost in what she is actually is talking about but put that down to me rather than her. There is certainly a lot of, lets call them the known researchers and commentators, damning by very faint praise. All in my humble opinion of course.

by Cake Lover 07.09.24 14:48

It's not only you Nina, I get confused by Pat's digressions. She seems in a hurry to get all of her points across.

by Nina 07.09.24 14:54

Cake Lover wrote:It's not only you Nina, I get confused by Pat's digressions. She seems in a hurry to get all of her points across.

This is what I mean by hyper she really leaves me scratching my head. However at the end of the day she didn't go with Bernt Stellander and I am sure that she and others will have prevented many from reading. Not stopped from buying but actually stop reading anything posted online they will just go along with what we have had for years now.

by Amy Dean 07.09.24 14:59

Pat's review of Bernt's book hasn't put me off reading it. His own interviews have done that. Perhaps it's just me but he seems to be talking in riddles.

by Nina 07.09.24 15:07

Amy Dean wrote:Pat's review of Bernt's book hasn't put me off reading it. His own interviews have done that. Perhaps it's just me but he seems to be talking in riddles.

You are blaming yourself like I have done haha. I am often left wondering what I have watched and listened to but my preferred method of learning and understanding requires watching and listening to a person who has the skills of presentation and sorry but Pat, for me, has lost it and Bernt is still learning. Listening to either of them just confused me. Too long and too much talking. Not enough visual aids and not able to ask for clarification.

by pablowski 07.09.24 15:22

Pat Brown has her own opinion and disagrees with some of the claims by Bernt. I don't think it is useful to berate someone who has done a lot of good analysis/work on this case just because she disagrees with Bernt.

And whether Smithman is GM or not - I think she is correct in stating that the McCann response to the Smithman sighting is one of the main big clues in the McCann case. I think her YouTube video on this is excellent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD8OlQqRhT8&t=1550s

All hypotheses [including the abduction hypothesis itself] are there to be tested with counter hypotheses and by testing the hypotheses with specific scenarios that cast doubt on the hypothesis and by counter examples - whether that be by Pat Brown or AN Other. [As logic experts among you can see, I am no expert in the processes of logic.]

But this is a very complex case and many analysts share the common belief that abduction did not happen. Pat, Richard, Bernt share the same broad conclusions about what happened but differ in the exact details of what actually did happen and when.

So, hats off to all of those who have taken the time to do a deep dive in this case. Let's respect them all. Let's not 'spit on them' because they don't say what we think they should say.

Hopefully, one day the truth will come out.

by Honesty 08.09.24 15:09

Imo this video of PB's makes a compelling argument for Smithman being GM.

Imo Pat is one of the true "giants" regarding this case.

by Bluebagthepirate 08.09.24 15:26

Honesty wrote:Imo this video of PB's makes a compelling argument for Smithman being GM.

Which part is compelling?

by Honesty 08.09.24 15:33

The response of the McCanns, ie to ignore it.

by **Jill Havern** 08.09.24 17:51

From Bernt:

You could comment that the mccs silence and legal battle to avoid Smith showing his sketch of his own conviction, is that having a sketch of Gerry claimed to be smithman, takes the focus off the T9 Tannerman, the main character in the faked abduction.
The mccs ignoring smithman is NOT an argument that Gerry was there. That's very poor deduction as the mentioned Tannerman argument has more weight to it.

by Buzz Shine 08.09.24 18:19

Jill Havern wrote:From Bernt:

You could comment that the mccs silence and legal battle to avoid Smith showing his sketch of his own conviction, is that having a sketch of Gerry claimed to be smithman, takes the focus off the T9 Tannerman, the main character in the faked abduction.
The mccs ignoring smithman is NOT an argument that Gerry was there. That's very poor deduction as the mentioned Tannerman argument has more weight to it.

I can't buy that one. If you are staging an abduction, two possible abductors are simply two times better than one. That's a mathematical fact. Especially given the second possible abductor is provided by witnesses who can be considered as completely independent witnesses. If you're staging an abduction, taking the focus off Tannerman is the last thing on your mind. Poor deductions are all in the eye of the beholder if you ask me.

by Buzz Shine 08.09.24 19:03

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Honesty wrote:Imo this video of PB's makes a compelling argument for Smithman being GM.
Which part is compelling?

The supressing the e-fits is compelling. The McCanns were more than prepared to release the Victoria Beckham lookalike e-fits. Taking the focus away from Tannerman had it's advantages to them when they felt it suited them. Smithman was witnessed at the right time and in the right location, if they knew he wasn't Gerry, releasing them asap was perfect publicity for them, IMO.

by **Jill Havern** 08.09.24 19:09

From Bernt:

Please respond to Buzz Shine who responded.
"Not when the second abductor is a perfect sketch of Gerry. Of course that doesn't count as a second potential abductor, as seen from the mccs. This is about the sketch, not number of potential abductors running around".

by Bluebagthepirate 08.09.24 19:13

Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Honesty wrote:Imo this video of PB's makes a compelling argument for Smithman being GM.
Which part is compelling?
The supressing the e-fits is compelling. The McCanns were more than prepared to release the Victoria Beckham lookalike e-fits. Taking the focus away from Tannerman had it's advantages to them when they felt it suited them. Smithman was witnessed at the right time and in the right location, if they knew he wasn't Gerry, releasing them asap was perfect publicity for them, IMO.

Who suppressed the e-fits?
They had their own Tannerman to promote if you think it was the McCanns who did the suppressing. They didn't want anyone getting in the way of that.

Smithman was wrong time and location for Gerry.
He's also not stupid enough to wandering around bars and restaurant areas - undisguised - when he could bump into anyone.

Not really compelling at all.

by Buzz Shine 08.09.24 19:27

Jill Havern wrote:From Bernt:

Please respond to Buzz Shine who responded.
"Not when the second abductor is a perfect sketch of Gerry. Of course that doesn't count as a second potential abductor, as seen from the mccs. This is about the sketch, not number of potential abductors running around".

If I had staged an abduction and I knew for certain the person in the sketch wasn't me, even if it looked like me, I know I could make it count and I'd want to make it count as a second potential abductor to the public and maybe even to the police. All I have to do is concentrate on the description of the child the suspect was carrying and ignore everything they said about me. I know I don't have to worry, because I know it's not me. That's a stage abductor and a public relation experts dream IMO. It's oh so much better than the Victoria Beckham debacle.

by Buzz Shine 08.09.24 19:44

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Honesty wrote:Imo this video of PB's makes a compelling argument for Smithman being GM.
Which part is compelling?
The supressing the e-fits is compelling. The McCanns were more than prepared to release the Victoria Beckham lookalike e-fits. Taking the focus away from Tannerman had it's advantages to them when they felt it suited them. Smithman was witnessed at the right time and in the right location, if they knew he wasn't Gerry, releasing them asap was perfect publicity for them, IMO.
Who suppressed the e-fits?
They had their own Tannerman to promote if you think it was the McCanns who did the suppressing. They didn't want anyone getting in the way of that.

Smithman was wrong time and location for Gerry.
He's also not stupid enough to wandering around bars and restaurant areas - undisguised - when he could bump into anyone.

Not really compelling at all.

By the time they got those e-fits drawn up, Tannerman was under real pressure. The kind of pressure Smithman could have eased for them. If Madeleine died in the apartment, they had to get her out through the streets of PDL somehow. They didn't have a car. Kate could have slept in the childrens' room because Madeleine's corpse was in the wardrobe for all anyone knows. That's why only qualified investigators with full clearance to investigate thoroughly can ever have a chance of solving it.

by Bluebagthepirate 08.09.24 20:03

Tannerman has never been under pressure as far as the McCanns were concerned and is still pushed today.

So you seem to be ruling out Bernt Stellander because he's not a qualified investigator?

by Bluebagthepirate 08.09.24 20:06

Oh and if you think Maddy may have been in the wardrobe and kate slept in the spare bed then you rule out 3rd of May as time of death which kind of alleviates the need for a mad stupid rush at 10pm.

by Buzz Shine 08.09.24 20:17

Bluebagthepirate wrote:Oh and if you think Maddy may have been in the wardrobe and kate slept in the spare bed then you rule out 3rd of May as time of death which kind of alleviates the need for a mad stupid rush at 10pm.

What I think doesn't matter, it's what we know that matters. I never said anything about any mad rush at 10pm. It could all have been planned well before that for all I know. I don't see how they could have possibly gotten Madeleine out the apartment without walking her corpse through the streets of PDL somehow, at some point though. That's just one part of Smithman that I find feasible.

by Bluebagthepirate 08.09.24 20:21

In a bag in the early hours of the morning?
Is that not feasible?

Are you saying Bernt can't solve this by the way?

by Buzz Shine 08.09.24 20:27

Of course the bag is feasible, that's why you can't rule it out. You'd have to actually be certain that Madeleine fitted in it comfortably though. Whether it was in the bag, or in Gerry's arms, they still had to get her out through the streets of PDL. I'm saying I'll be amazed if Brent, or anyone outside the investigation can solve it. I'm not saying I wouldn't love him to solve it though.

by Bluebagthepirate 08.09.24 20:30

I find Smithman unfeasible because it makes no sense.

by Buzz Shine 08.09.24 20:50

Smithman makes perfect sense to Amaral. Nor did I see the McCanns calling on their seven friends at his trial to put Smithman and Amaral's theory to bed once and for all. If they were all sitting with Gerry at the time, putting Smithman to bed once and for all would have been easy as pie. A lot of things about Smithman, don't make any sense. They didn't put him to bed once and for all and paid the ultimate price.

Latest topics