Re: BRICK Reviews

by crusader 09.09.24 8:09

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
crusader wrote:So now I've found a map showing where the night creche was and in my opinion it could not have been someone picking their child up from there that the Smiths saw.
No way.
Who said it had to be?

Smith said the sight was normal.

Oh yeah... and not a tourist.

I was ruling out someone coming from the creche out, that's all,
Narrowing down the suspects.

by pinkgladioli 09.09.24 8:22

It’s also disingenuous to suggest that everyone forgets things I like others knew that Scotland Yard released the photo fits

No matter what, the McCanns ultimate investment is Tannerman

Im sure it’s post 297 or there abouts by Peter Mac that sums it up perfectly

by Buzz Shine 09.09.24 8:25

Bluebagthepirate wrote:Exactly! They were too interested in their other narratives being pushed big time to confuse the issue with other narratives.

So who released the McCanns own efits then?

But the McCanns' own false narrative was that their little girl was abducted by a stranger in PDL. The time of the Smithman sighting and the location independent witnesses reported seeing this stranger with a child, all the Smiths thought could have been Madeleine, reinforces that false narrative perfectly. How confusing is that for everyone if the McCanns were certain it wasn't Gerry? As far as I am aware, it was Operation Grange who released the McCanns' own e-fits of Smithman.

by Bluebagthepirate 09.09.24 8:33

Yes, but where did Grange get the pictures?

Not suppressed then.

Ignored yes because of the other narrative.

by **Jill Havern** 09.09.24 8:33

pinkgladioli wrote:It’s also disingenuous to suggest that everyone forgets things I like others knew that Scotland Yard released the photo fits

No matter what, the McCanns ultimate investment is Tannerman

Im sure it’s post 297 or there abouts by Peter Mac that sums it up perfectly

PeterMacSmithman is fascinating.
He could almost have been invented by the McCanns
They invented Tannerman, but probably realised that he/it was going to be blown out of the water very quickly.

As he/it was.
Redwood got embarrassed and invented Totman-man to take the blame
But the McCanns cannot let go of Tannerman, and TO THIS DAY he is still on the Madeleine Website

But then up pops Smithman, and immediately half the researchers and the PJ latch onto him
This suits the McCanns perfectly since half are now ignoring Tannerman, and both 'sightings' reinforce the idea of an Abductor.
OK the times don't fit, but that is not their concern.

Their concern is that there is confusion, and an endless supply of theories to cover up the fact that neither Tannerman nor Smithman have anything at all to do with the death and concealment of Madeleine the previous night,

They now have TWO wild goose chases running, and NO ONE, NOT ANYONE is looking at the Pool Photo, or the creche sheets, or any of the other evidence staring us all in the face for YEARS..
And NO ONE is asking any of the staff or witnesses - in any detail - about what they saw on Wednesday or Tuesday or Monday, or even Sunday. It was perfect.

And 18 years later we are still here debating - burial in sand, upturned boats, going back to move the body later and all sorts of stuff for which there is no evidence at all.

And all of which incidentally blunts Occam's Razor so badly that it can never be sharpened again

by **Jill Havern** 09.09.24 8:44

PeterMac wrote:And 18 years later we are still here debating - burial in sand, upturned boats, going back to move the body later and all sorts of stuff for which there is no evidence at all.

Funny, cos Pat's always saying she only looks at the evidence.
think

by Buzz Shine 09.09.24 9:11

Jill Havern wrote:
pinkgladioli wrote:It’s also disingenuous to suggest that everyone forgets things I like others knew that Scotland Yard released the photo fits

No matter what, the McCanns ultimate investment is Tannerman

Im sure it’s post 297 or there abouts by Peter Mac that sums it up perfectly
PeterMacSmithman is fascinating.
He could almost have been invented by the McCanns
They invented Tannerman, but probably realised that he/it was going to be blown out of the water very quickly.

As he/it was.
Redwood got embarrassed and invented Totman-man to take the blame
But the McCanns cannot let go of Tannerman, and TO THIS DAY he is still on the Madeleine Website

But then up pops Smithman, and immediately half the researchers and the PJ latch onto him
This suits the McCanns perfectly since half are now ignoring Tannerman, and both 'sightings' reinforce the idea of an Abductor.
OK the times don't fit, but that is not their concern.

Their concern is that there is confusion, and an endless supply of theories to cover up the fact that neither Tannerman nor Smithman have anything at all to do with the death and concealment of Madeleine the previous night,

They now have TWO wild goose chases running, and NO ONE, NOT ANYONE is looking at the Pool Photo, or the creche sheets, or any of the other evidence staring us all in the face for YEARS..
And NO ONE is asking any of the staff or witnesses - in any detail - about what they saw on Wednesday or Tuesday or Monday, or even Sunday. It was perfect.

And 18 years later we are still here debating - burial in sand, upturned boats, going back to move the body later and all sorts of stuff for which there is no evidence at all.

And all of which incidentally blunts Occam's Razor so badly that it can never be sharpened again

It's only natural to this day, the McCanns can't let go of Tannerman. By the time the Smithman e-fits were released the damage was done. It was too late to turn back. If I were the McCanns I wouldn't give a monkey's about online researchers. The only people I'm concerned about, is the official researchers. It's the most infamous missing person case in the history of missing people and probably always will be. That's always going to draw an endless list of theorists to theorise. But it's looking increasingly unlikely that even one of them, will ever be tested in a court of law. If no-one is ever going to ask any of the staff or witnesses in any detail about what they saw on Wednesday or Tuesday or Monday, or even Sunday, what possible chance have you got? I'm not trying to be pessimistic, I'm trying to be realistic.

by **PeterMac** 09.09.24 9:35

I can understand the hostility towards Brent Stellander's book from those who have written and published their own books or put videos on You Tube in which they detail their own research and set out the conclusions which they present as definitive and final, and following logically from the evidence they provide.

A long and detailed book putting forward a different suggestion about the sequence of events, then backed up with prediction and subsequent scientific testing of that prediction is always going to be challenging.
And when that testing of the prediction leads, as in scientific method, to subsequent hypotheses which are offered openly for further testing, the intellectual challenge becomes greater at each stage.

People who have worked in this case, in some instances for 18 years, are likely to harden their 'beliefs'.
But that is a danger. New evidence should of course be tested, to destruction, but not simply rejected merely because it does not 'fit' the preconception, or excluded from the debate because it is different.

Therein lie the Miscarriages of justice we have seen and are seeing in the Post Office case, Stefan Kiszko, Timothy Evans, Malkinson, Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, and many more in the UK, let alone Drefus, van de Lubbe, and many more in European jurisdictions.

We must remain agnostic, and look only at the evidence and see where it leads us. We must, like a jury, listen to the 'Defence' and weight the opposing evidence - WITHOUT IMPOSING ON IT our own prejudgments.

There is more which Bernt has not yet disclosed, and which is 'developing' as we e-speak,

I would caution against making bold and final decisions at this point.

Or as someone else said more eloquently
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?" Matt. 7:1-5

Be patient, and remain open minded.

by **Jill Havern** 09.09.24 10:00

PeterMac wrote:New evidence should of course be tested, to destruction, but not simply rejected merely because it does not 'fit' the preconception, or excluded from the debate because it is different.

We must remain agnostic, and look only at the evidence and see where it leads us. We must, like a jury, listen to the 'Defence' and weight the opposing evidence - WITHOUT IMPOSING ON IT our own prejudgments.

There is more which Bernt has not yet disclosed, and which is 'developing' as we e-speak,

I would caution against making bold and final decisions at this point.

So to quote a certain Criminal Profiler's summing up of the Brick as 'hahaha...nonsense!' (without completely reading it) isn't quite the right approach?
think

by pinkgladioli 09.09.24 10:07

As Peter Mac say’s why is no one concentrating on the validity of the last photo

What media outlet was first to release it?

by **Jill Havern** 09.09.24 10:25

Possibly the Telegraph and Guardian

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552519/Parents-release-last-known-photo-of-Madeleine.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/24/ukcrime

by crusader 09.09.24 10:40

It doesn't matter when it was released does it, apart from trying to show Madeleine was alive that day.
The date of the release only puts more suspicion on the McCann's.
What does matter is, the McCann's told the PJ they had shown them all the photo's of the holiday of Madeleine.
That was a lie.
If they had the photo of Madeleine at the time of the interviews and showed it to the police, that could have thrown them off looking at them, but they didn't.
More interesting to me is, they obviously had the photo, taken at some point on the holiday, why didn't they produce it, there must be a reason.

by Bluebagthepirate 09.09.24 10:51

She was no longer with us on May 3rd.

by Buzz Shine 09.09.24 11:01

PeterMac wrote:I can understand the hostility towards Brent Stellander's book from those who have written and published their own books or put videos on You Tube in which they detail their own research and set out the conclusions which they present as defiitive and final, and following logically from the evidence they provide.

A long and detailed book putting forward a different suggestion about the sequence of events, then backed up with prediction and subsequent scientific testing of that prediction is always going to be challenging.
And when that testing of the prediction leads, as in scientific method, to subsequent hypotheses which are offered openly for further testing, the intellectual challenge becomes greater at each stage.

People who have worked in this case, in some instances for 18 years, are likely to harden their 'beliefs'.
But that is a danger. New evidence should of course be tested, to destruction, but not simply rejected merely because it does not 'fit' the preconception, or excluded from the debate because it is different.

Therein lie the Miscarriages of justice we have seen and are seeing in the Post Office case, Stefan Kiszko, Timothy Evans, Malkinson, Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, and many more in the UK, let alone Drefus, van de Lubbe, and many more in European jurisdictions.

We must remain agnostic, and look only at the evidence and see where it leads us. We must, like a jury, listen to the 'Defence' and weight the opposing evidence - WITHOUT IMPOSING ON IT our own prejudgments.

There is more which Bernt has not yet disclosed, and which is 'developing' as we e-speak,

I would caution against making bold and final decisions at this point.

Or as someone else said more eloquently
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?" Matt. 7:1-5

Be patient, and remain open minded.

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. (even though it did to SY) This is about the sketch, not number of potential abductors running around". (where's the proof?)

I fully agree. It's much more sensible in the absence of proof to keep an open mind. But that principle should to apply to every mind. It's unwise to only apply it, to the minds that suit our own beliefs.

by pinkgladioli 09.09.24 11:11

Re the supposed last photo
So the McCanns possibly released it to them first?
Am I right in thinking that when Madeleine first went missing the Telegraph were first to report the news before any other media outlets?

Just wondered when GM has a relation who states they are a journalist
called Mark Sweeney
He wrote an article called. Maddie Who? 5 June 2007
On looking at Mark Sweeneys profile on LinkedIn it lists his occupation as

Scottish Sun Picture Editor
July 1992 - May 2023 30 years 11 months
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom

I head up the team here at Scottish Sun Picture Desk where we organise and source the images used daily in our newspaper, and online. I am responsible for liaising with our News, Features, Sport and Promotions departments and keeping the Editor informed of picture content available. I manage the Picture desk staff seven day operation, Picture Desk budgets, commision photographers and scan 30,000+ images per day that cross our busy desk. I also deal with many freelance photographers, PR agencies and Media Officers on a daily basis to make sure we are abreast of events
Over my 30 odd years here as a Picture Editor, I have dealt with all kinds of stories, disasters, winners, losers, with the odd UFO and Loch Ness Monster thrown for good measure

by crusader 09.09.24 11:23

Bluebagthepirate wrote
She was no longer with us on May 3rd.

But the photo was.

by pinkgladioli 09.09.24 11:30

Yes I get that!
It reinforces that something was deffo stinks when GM likely had this guy as a relation on speed dial to get this so called picture out as soon as his daughter went missing and instead chose to show other photos to the world of a younger Madeleine

by **PeterMac** 09.09.24 12:08

Jill Havern wrote:Possibly the Telegraph and Guardian

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552519/Parents-release-last-known-photo-of-Madeleine.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/24/ukcrime

Mitchell sent it to APF on 23/5. His first act as their Spokesman, since he had arrived on the plane WITH GM the previous day
The French Press Agency sent it across the world. - FOR MONEY - so it could be published on 24/5

The same day incidentally that the Totally invented and Lying article about Mrs Boyd and the fictitious waterslide was published

by Bluebagthepirate 09.09.24 15:12

crusader wrote:Bluebagthepirate wrote
She was no longer with us on May 3rd.

But the photo was.

Quite.

by Amy Dean 09.09.24 16:52

What a strange story (even by normal McCann standards) was that of the Boyd family who supposedly met Madeleine a day or two before she was reported missing.

We feel so much for Maddie's mum (gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk)

The interview only appeared in an obscure, soon to go out of business, magazine. Why it didn't make headline news in the mainstream media, I don't know.

by Honesty 09.09.24 18:04

Amy Dean wrote:What a strange story (even by normal McCann standards) was that of the Boyd family who supposedly met Madeleine a day or two before she was reported missing.

We feel so much for Maddie's mum (gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk)

The interview only appeared in an obscure, soon to go out of business, magazine. Why it didn't make headline news in the mainstream media, I don't know.

Wasn't Mrs Boyd very upset by the article - because it was completely fabricated.

by **Jill Havern** 09.09.24 18:09

https://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/chapter-20-spot-water-slide.html

https://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/chapter-39-beyond-reasonable-waterslide.html

by Truthseeker90210 09.09.24 23:07

I purchased Bernt’s book from Amazon and read from fin to back. I can across a description of the back page photo of the book..it sent shivers down my spine.however, this picture isn’t in the Amazon version or Ishtar just me? from this description I could only think about cult rituals.

by **PeterMac** 10.09.24 8:42

Honesty wrote:
Amy Dean wrote:What a strange story (even by normal McCann standards) was that of the Boyd family who supposedly met Madeleine a day or two before she was reported missing.
We feel so much for Maddie's mum (gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk)

The interview only appeared in an obscure, soon to go out of business, magazine. Why it didn't make headline news in the mainstream media, I don't know.
Wasn't Mrs Boyd very upset by the article - because it was completely fabricated.

Extremely. Flung the magazine across the room and burst into tears - according to her.
I spoke to her a few times before I wrote the Chapter and sent it to here in Draft to make sure it was correct.

Guzmaroli emigrated to Australia and is empioyed by YET ANOTHER Murdoch outlet.

https://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/chapter-20-spot-water-slide.html

https://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/chapter-39-beyond-reasonable-waterslide.html
"IN THE PREVIOUS VERSION OF THE CHAPTER I WROTE:-
Whether Vicky Boyd ever said the things alleged we may never know.

BUT NOW WE DO KNOW

Mrs BOYD IS VERY CLEAR, AND SHE HAS CHECKED HER RECOLLECTION WITH HER MOTHER AND HER HUSBAND. What follows is from face-to-face real-time internet enabled communication

Gusmaroli, with many other journalists in the days following the ‘incident’, trawled up and down the beach speaking to innocent holiday makers trying to find any who would ‘give them a ‘story’. Sometime early in the week of 7th - 13th May she spoke to the Boyd family who were sitting on the beach.
Mrs Boyd recalls that Gusmaroli “didn’t stay very long” and merely “crouched or knelt down” to speak to the family.

Mrs Boyd reported that she thought she might have seen the McCann family on the Wednesday or Thursday during the morning, as they came past with some children. At that stage they did not know the McCanns. They were merely two adults with young children. Mrs Boyd recalls and reported that the weather was “lousy”, grey and cloudy.
Her son Louie engaged with one of the children with the couple for a very short time, measured in no more than seconds or minutes, and a ball was involved. The McCanns, if indeed it was them, continued on their way and the incident concluded, with the Boyd family seeking a warming coffee.

No words were spoken between the Boyds and the McCann parents. The weather was not conducive to sun-bathing, the entire contact took less than 3 or 4 minutes.

And from that Gusmaroli concocted and invented the entire story, embellishing it with totally invented details of date, time, location, activity, weather, speech, and clothing.

It is perhaps worth recording Mrs Boyd’s recollection of her reaction to seeing the article for the first time.
She reports becoming extremely upset, swearing openly, contrary to her usual behaviour, and throwing the copy into the rubbish bin. When another friend showed her the article on a second occasion Mrs Boyd again became angry and again destroyed the magazine, such was her distress at having been traduced in this way.

So far as we can discover Gusmaroli’s article was not syndicated to any other paper. It did not appear in the Daily Mail, which was a tabloid for which she used to write.
The Magazine in question, First, which was published by Emap, was launched in May 2006, but was not the success its US predecessor had been. The Editor resigned, a new editor was appointed and it was re-launched in the spring of 2007. This may explain the Special Introductory price. It makes it look as if it had miraculously “popped up” with its first or second of the new edition tailored for this particular story. But the new Editor also resigned shortly after this edition was published. It disappeared fairly shortly afterwards after a series of stories about not hitting its sales targets.

The publishers have not replied to my emails seeking clarification on a number of points.
Possibly not surprising since I was exploring the economics of sending a journalist to PdL for one 600 word article for an obscure women’s magazine. It does not seem to have been syndicated or churned by any of the usual suspects.

In the previous version of this chapter I wrote - “We shall certainly never know why Gusmaroli, a professional and experienced reporter, did not check even the most basic of the facts being related to her - if indeed they were - or write the article so that it would reflect even some of the truth, some vestige of credibility, or at the very least one or two verifiable details.”

What we can now say, based on the first hand evidence of the witness in question is this -
“We now know on the basis of firm evidence, that Gusmaroli, a professional and experienced reporter, invented almost every aspect of this article, including in it details which were manifestly untrue, and capable of being exposed as such by simple investigation.”

She is described by one of her more recent employers as having “a tradition of breaking exclusives”.
We may hope this was not one of them, and that her CV does not rely on journalism of this type.

13

The unworthy suspicion grows that this was a highly detailed and specific commission.
But organised by whom? And when?
Would no one at Emap, the publishing company, object to being coerced or manipulated in this way ?

(Incidentally and obviously ‘a propos’ of nothing, and clearly totally coincidentally, the editor of First,
Jane Johnson, resigned from EMAP on 12 June 2007, to go to News of the World, the now defunct Murdoch tabloid, in the role of Deputy Editor and Editorial Director. Second in Command to the egregious Rebekah Brooks. The edition of 19 May would have been the last one she edited.

Given the length of time it takes to ‘’apply for’ and negotiate a career change of that magnitude, we can safely assume that she knew and had decided some time before June 2007)

. . . .
DRAMATIS PERSONAE

Danielle Gusmaroli emigrated or returned to Australia a few years later, married on Bali (according to her FB and Instagram pages) and now writes for Daily Mail Australia submitting important and in-depth articles on subjects such as homemade toothpaste, chocolate cake, cellulite thighs, wearing nappies during pregnancy, exposed nipples, and why a 10 year old girl thinks sex is disgusting.

15

She also writes for, or is employed by the Daily Telegraph Australia, which is not a clone of the British version, but a tabloid in the stable of News Corp, which is ultimately owned by Murdoch who has been mentioned before (vide supra, Editor of First, Jane Johnson). Her articles are syndicated across southern Australia, to publications such as Courier Mail.

by deepeepee 10.09.24 10:05

Truthseeker90210 wrote:I purchased Bernt’s book from Amazon and read from fin to back. I can across a description of the back page photo of the book..it sent shivers down my spine.however, this picture isn’t in the Amazon version or Ishtar just me? from this description I could only think about cult rituals.

Could you tell us what is the description you are referring to?
Do you have a photo to share or can you copy the text for us?