Re: BRICK Reviews

by **CaKeLoveR** 04.11.24 12:12

Honesty wrote:
CaKeLoveR wrote:Neither do I, and I hope I haven't contributed to his considering leaving. I was negative about him before he joined.
I don't think so. From memory, you've always seemed very supportive of Bernt's theories.

Well, I haven't read the book, so I'm not entitled to an opinion on it. But I was definitely suspicious early on.

by **crusader** 04.11.24 12:18

Actually, I was the last person Bernt replied to on the
second Bernt Stellander interview last night.
This Morning he wanted his account closing, am I to blame?
I think I came out the offended one in that post.

by Clishmaclaver 04.11.24 12:21

CaKeLoveR wrote:
Honesty wrote:
CaKeLoveR wrote:Neither do I, and I hope I haven't contributed to his considering leaving. I was negative about him before he joined.
I don't think so. From memory, you've always seemed very supportive of Bernt's theories.[/quote
Well, I haven't read the book, so I'm not entitled to an opinion on it. But I was definitely suspicious early on.

I'll be a devil and ask if you were wary of using inverted commas for the quote.

LOL!

by **CaKeLoveR** 04.11.24 12:24

No, I messed up the function again - my post was supposed to be separate from Honesty's.

by **Jill Havern** 04.11.24 12:28

I sorted it.

Because that's what I do.

by **CaKeLoveR** 04.11.24 12:33

You're a first class faffer. Mrs

by GreenTara 04.11.24 12:34

I don’t think the issues are between those that agree with his theories and those that don’t. It is acceptable to disagree with him and I wish people would stop talking as if it’s not. It’s people commenting who don’t understand what his theories are or how they have come to be yet insist on talking as if they do, that’s where the problem lies. .

by pinkgladioli 04.11.24 12:35

Clishmaclaver wrote:
CaKeLoveR wrote:
Honesty wrote:
CaKeLoveR wrote:Neither do I, and I hope I haven't contributed to his considering leaving. I was negative about him before he joined.
I don't think so. From memory, you've always seemed very supportive of Bernt's theories.[/quote
Well, I haven't read the book, so I'm not entitled to an opinion on it. But I was definitely suspicious early on.

I'll be a devil and ask if you were wary of using inverted commas for the quote.

LOL!

That made me spill my coffee ha ha!

by GreenTara 04.11.24 12:42

Then we also have people who clearly have no interest in the brick, the podcast or any of Stellanders work, but persistently pop up to say something that’s got nothing to do with the topic of the thread. I mean to the exclusion of ever making a single comment that shows they are interested. Why? It’s tiresome.

by GreenTara 04.11.24 12:52

Jill Havern wrote:Let's not forget that I was going to close this forum at the beginning of the year because, for one reason, I was tired of all the drama spoiling so many threads.

The McCann case was also stale and going nowhere after 17 years, then along came Bernt fresh from his seven-year investigation with new info in a Brick of a book for us all to debate.

Yet, without even reading his book, he's come under attack so, of course, he's going to get fed up and defend himself. Or leave.

I personally invited Bernt to this forum - something I don't think he even wanted to do after his experience on farcebewk groups.

We need to see where his investigation will lead...it's not over yet.

I don't want Bernt to leave.

This is important. I have been interested in the case since the start, not always actively. It was the May 2 book launch that reignited my interest and led me to join this forum. I suspect there are others like me.
The whole thing had become something a few enjoyed chewing over. The audience was not particularly growing any more and it was not helping Maddie in any significant way.
We don’t even know the potential of the work being done here, yet people want to kill it rather than see it play out to see what happens. Just like the McCanns would. I find that so odd.

by **Jill Havern** 04.11.24 13:02

GreenTara wrote:Then we also have people who clearly have no interest in the brick, the podcast or any of Stellanders work, but persistently pop up to say something that’s got nothing to do with the topic of the thread. I mean to the exclusion of ever making a single comment that shows they are interested. Why? It’s tiresome.

Let's just say there are people here who think they are flying underneath my radar.

by **Jill Havern** 04.11.24 13:05

GreenTara wrote:We don’t even know the potential of the work being done here, yet people want to kill it rather than see it play out to see what happens. Just like the McCanns would. I find that so odd.

Nail on head.

by **CaKeLoveR** 04.11.24 13:11

You're right, we don't know the potential of the work being done here. It's a valuable record of the case, covering absolutely every word and deed from the minute we heard about Madeleine, and some investigation of what preceded her so-called abduction. Who knows how useful this may turn out to be, even if it takes a hundred years to manifest?

by **Silentscope** 04.11.24 13:41

If the 'Never ending Story' of Madeleine does ever conclude one day, it sure will be interesting to see which Authors were the most Accurate.

by GreenTara 04.11.24 13:52

We don’t know the full potential, but we* DO know that the brick is robust proof that there was no abduction. I don’t think Team McCann ever thought someone would go to these lengths to scrutinise all the media interviews and statements and attempt to thread it together in all possible ways, showing that every possible route leads to the same conclusion - no abduction. For this book to reach a court setting would be the McCanns worst nightmare. That is a fact.
*we = anyone who has actually read the book

by Jojo1 04.11.24 14:53

I am fully supportive of Bernt. In fact I he read his book twice now in order to digest everything, often re reading some parts.
If people took the time to actually read Bernts book then maybe they would realise where he is coming from and how he reached his hypotheses. He makes sense.
He has looked at everything with fresh eyes and been very proactive so far and is continuing to do so.
So instead of criticising and nitpicking, we should open our minds and put preconceptions to the side. Our Peter Mac has done that so why can't we.
Nobody knows the full story of what happened to Madeleine and we may never know. But if Bernts approach opens doors to 're open the case and rattle a few cages, then that is a positive thing.
Bernt has said that timing is everything. That is abundantly clear in his book and interview. How this plays out, is not up to us therefore a little patience wouldn't go amiss.

BERNT please don't leave the forum. The majority here support what you are doing.

by Jojo1 04.11.24 14:56

GreenTara wrote:We don’t know the full potential, but we* DO know that the brick is robust proof that there was no abduction. I don’t think Team McCann ever thought someone would go to these lengths to scrutinise all the media interviews and statements and attempt to thread it together in all possible ways, showing that every possible route leads to the same conclusion - no abduction. For this book to reach a court setting would be the McCanns worst nightmare. That is a fact.
*we = anyone who has actually read the book

My sentiments exactly

by **AnneCGuedes** 04.11.24 16:22

GreenTara wrote:We don’t know the full potential, but we* DO know that the brick is robust proof that there was no abduction. I don’t think Team McCann ever thought someone would go to these lengths to scrutinise all the media interviews and statements and attempt to thread it together in all possible ways, showing that every possible route leads to the same conclusion - no abduction. For this book to reach a court setting would be the McCanns worst nightmare. That is a fact.
*we = anyone who has actually read the book

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, the proof there was no abduction is in the PJFiles.

by Jojo1 04.11.24 16:58

Anne what has Caesar got to do with anything. You are talking in riddles.
We know the proof is in the PJ files.
Bernts book goes in detail about that and has scrutinised them, including Kate's bewk, using their own words against them to reach his hypotheses/ theory about the timeline.
Read it please as it makes more sense than Caesar mumbo jumbo sarcasm.

by **AnneCGuedes** 04.11.24 16:59

Jojo1 wrote:Anne what has Caesar got to do with anything. You are talking in riddles.
We know the proof is in the PJ files.
Bernts book goes in detail about that and has scrutinised them, including Kate's bewk, using their own words against them to reach his hypotheses/ theory about the timeline.
Read it please as it makes more sense than Caesar mumbo jumbo sarcasm.

No riddles, just the Bible !

by **BerntS** 04.11.24 17:17

Anne.
You lied three times already, even once to the owner of the forum, about having read the book. You've pretended to having read the book for months. Have you no shame.
You tried hard to get a free book from my publisher, but she found you very arrogant and rude, and even used Isabelle and Pat Brown as sources to put me down in your email. This was more than three months ago, yet you pretend you got the English version somewhere.

Your fancy analogies can't hide your childish and jealous nature.

by GreenTara 04.11.24 18:54

There is good evidence in the PJ files. Not the robust proof I am speaking of in the brick.
I specifically stated “as those who have read it will know”
If you haven’t read it, you have no basis on which to comment. Simple.
This thread is not about the PJ files, it is not about the bible.
This thread is about the Brick!

by **Ladyinred** 04.11.24 19:20

Can all these clashes now stop, please?

It's feeling very uncomfortable here.

by **AnneCGuedes** 04.11.24 19:29

BerntS wrote:Anne.
If you'd read my book, you'd already know that quote is also in my book.

If you also quoted K's words in your book, why arguying that "Kate only felt relieved after they'd moved the body, which was weeks later..." ?

by **AnneCGuedes** 04.11.24 20:13

Jill suggested I posted this. Take it as you like.

by **BerntS** 04.11.24 21:08

Anne.
You don't understand how much worse that makes you look.
I'm done with your evil streaks.
Allergic to :dragon::dragon::dragon:

by **CaKeLoveR** 04.11.24 21:13

Don't let it one person annoy you, Bernt.

by **Cammerigal** 04.11.24 21:14

GreenTara wrote:Then we also have people who clearly have no interest in the brick, the podcast or any of Stellanders work, but persistently pop up to say something that’s got nothing to do with the topic of the thread. I mean to the exclusion of ever making a single comment that shows they are interested. Why? It’s tiresome.

'White Anting' is the process, where the purported theory or fact eg DNA evidence is relentlessly argued against, the character or mentality of the poster is questioned and if necessary side tracking to derail the thread. In this case, Bernt's book

@BerntS has spent 7years investigating the case and has put his utmost into his book. It isn't perfect, but it never can be, but it is his best and yes, if criticized one would expect a reaction. I still believe in the Sunday death scenario, despite Bernts' reasoned analysis, but this is a belief only, not a fact or strong principle.

It is time to pull together, support the positive action of releasing a book on a subject that is shut down and suppressed in the UK.

The white anting comments have also been noted