Bernt Stellander interview

They're not that keen on walking then, so I retract the remark.

Just to add, for those who haven't watched his latest video: The Deception Detective says Bernt does not give credit to the giants whose shoulders he is standing on.

Honesty wrote:Just to add, for those who haven't watched his latest video: The Deception Detective says Bernt does not give credit to the giants whose shoulders he is standing on.

He does in the book.

TDD hasn't read it.

That's good. Who does Bernt name?

To be honest, Anne, I, myself, can't say what it is. I'm not one of the "giants" in the long and determined search for the truth. I have a feeling that Bernt has done his best. I just hope he can solve the case.

Honesty wrote:That's good.  Who does Bernt name?

Brenda Leyland
Richard D. Hall
All the armchair detectives, bloggers, youtubers, vloggers (too numerous to mention)
And a special thank you to Pamalam

In the interview he mentioned CMOMM and PeterMac and FB groups.

Several very vocal critics are making heavy duty attacks on Bernt Stellander 
and his THEORY of what MAY have happened, and are using the fallacious argument 
known as the Straw Man.

They allege, by implication, that he is stating as FACT – a word they always put in capitals –
a number of things he discovered and what he deduced from the evidence he had found and analysed.

The best anyone can hope for – without full and rank admissions and confessions from the parents, 
confirmed by post-hoc forensic science testing – is a set of hypotheses, which IF they match the available evidence well enough may quality for promotion to THEORY.

The sequestration of Madeleine's body in a disused Sarcophagus for a month before moving it to a pre-prepared grave on the hill has, on Bernt's own telling not (yet) been confirmed.   Not by science, discovery, nor admission.

it remains a Theory, which happens to fit very closely with his interpretation of the evidence he has revealed - and perhaps even some he has chosen not yet to reveal.

To the present group of critics we can therefore agree it is not FACT.  (in capitals and Bold to make it look important)

But on any test it is a far stronger theory than Tannerman's having been seen marching off up the street carrying a child in his arms in the manner of a forklift truck;   Smithman's having been Gerry carrying a still warm corpse randomly around PdL within minutes of the alarm's being raised;  or a minor Royal's being in a yacht lying off the coast waiting to receive a living child;  or of the couple breaking into the Church with the tools necessary to unscrew a coffin;  or of several of the other more fanciful hypotheses or theories proposed thus far.

What distinguishes Bernt Stellander's Theory from others is this.
He applied scientific method to his thoughts.
He visited the scene – as did I when it tested the hypothesis about the shutters (and Pat B filmed it and posted it on You Tube, thus destroying that nonsense story – we hope forever, though we note that some on the fringes of knowledge still suggest it might have been possible)
He lived in PdL for three years, during which time he walked the ground hundreds of times, testing possibilities, changing his mind about possible routes and details, and eventually . . .
He – with an accomplice who is known to this investigation – went to the cemetery and with due reverence moved a stone slab of a Sarcophagus sufficiently to prove it could indeed be moved and replaced with relative ease.
He noted the distance, route and time it takes to walk from 5A to the cemetery, noted the ease and routes of access at all hours,  . . 
And he then explored for a long time, also measured in years, the area he believed the McCanns themselves had "leaked" as the final resting place.

He then followed the scientific necessity of Prediction.
He tested his own hypothesis against the likely actions of the persons involved as he describes at length in part 2 of the Brick.
That led to a result, which in turn allowed him more closely to define the area.
That too led to a result . . .
This process of iteration allowed him to define a very specific area which not only conforms to the necessary physical requirements, but on further prediction and testing of the refined hypothesis produced the results he reports.

It remains a Theory.    
The question now is – Is it strong enough for the proper authorities to test ?

AnneCGuedes wrote:

Bluebagthepirate wrote:Some more nit-picking in my opinion.

Madeleines blood was found on top of the tiles from swab 3A.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Bernt did an amazing job - yes I noticed some errors as well and the cemetery is not a given - yes he does state as fact things that may have a different interpretation - but overall he covered nearly everything and there is the 2nd part of the book still unfolding.

"An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed alleles (DNA components) within this result match the corresponding alleles in the DNA profile of MMC... The individual components in Madeleine's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 (instead of 29 since she inherited the same allele came from both parents) components that makes her profile unique above all others... 50% of Madeleine's profile will be shared with each parent."
Unfortunately nothing is said about the size of the sample and how many loci the FSS was able to study. To identify a combination of 20 markers, 10 loci need to be studied.  LCN technique was unable to identify the type of body fluid from which the sample had come (remember that the Keela would only alert to human blood that had dried in situ). 

Interesting reading : https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jan/16/ukcrime.forensicscience

Right!

It was either Madeleine, Gerry or Kate.

Except there weren't excuses going around about cut knees and nose bleeds for Kate and Gerry.

I think the dog decided what the "fluid" was.

In physics there is a theory floating around called string theory that many physicists have criticised as a failed model for the simple reason that it can't be tested. Why waste our precious time on any theory that can never be tested they say? In the McCann case I often wonder if the same principle applies. Why waste precious time on theories that investigators will never investigate? If investigators are never going to investigate them, what chance have they got?

PeterMac wrote:Several very vocal critics are making heavy duty attacks on Bernt Stellander 
and his THEORY of what MAY have happened, and are using the fallacious argument 
known as the Straw Man.

They allege, by implication, that he is stating as FACT – a word they always put in capitals –
a number of things he discovered and what he deduced from the evidence he had found and analysed.

The best anyone can hope for – without full and rank admissions and confessions from the parents, 
confirmed by post-hoc forensic science testing – is a set of hypotheses, which IF they match the available evidence well enough may quality for promotion to THEORY.

The sequestration of Madeleine's body in a disused Sarcophagus for a month before moving it to a pre-prepared grave on the hill has, on Bernt's own telling not (yet) been confirmed.   Not by science, discovery, nor admission.

it remains a Theory, which happens to fit very closely with his interpretation of the evidence he has revealed - and perhaps even some he has chosen not yet to reveal.

To the present group of critics we can therefore agree it is not FACT.  (in capitals and Bold to make it look important)

But on any test it is a far stronger theory than Tannerman's having been seen marching off up the street carrying a child in his arms in the manner of a forklift truck;   Smithman's having been Gerry carrying a still warm corpse randomly around PdL within minutes of the alarm's being raised;  or a minor Royal's being in a yacht lying off the coast waiting to receive a living child;  or of the couple breaking into the Church with the tools necessary to unscrew a coffin;  or of several of the other more fanciful hypotheses or theories proposed thus far.

What distinguishes Bernt Stellander's Theory from others is this.
He applied scientific method to his thoughts.
He visited the scene – as did I when it tested the hypothesis about the shutters (and Pat B filmed it and posted it on You Tube, thus destroying that nonsense story – we hope forever, though we note that some on the fringes of knowledge still suggest it might have been possible)
He lived in PdL for three years, during which time he walked the ground hundreds of times, testing possibilities, changing his mind about possible routes and details, and eventually . . .
He – with an accomplice who is known to this investigation – went to the cemetery and with due reverence moved a stone slab of a Sarcophagus sufficiently to prove it could indeed be moved and replaced with relative ease.
He noted the distance, route and time it takes to walk from 5A to the cemetery, noted the ease and routes of access at all hours,  . . 
And he then explored for a long time, also measured in years, the area he believed the McCanns themselves had "leaked" as the final resting place.

He then followed the scientific necessity of Prediction.
He tested his own hypothesis against the likely actions of the persons involved as he describes at length in part 2 of the Brick.
That led to a result, which in turn allowed him more closely to define the area.
That too led to a result . . .
This process of iteration allowed him to define a very specific area which not only conforms to the necessary physical requirements, but on further prediction and testing of the refined hypothesis produced the results he reports.

It remains a Theory.    
The question now is – Is it strong enough for the proper authorities to test ?

As Bernt has defined a very specific area, could not a specialist dog be brought in? I know Bernt said the Swedish archaeology dog had passed away (sadly) but hopefully another specialist dog could assist?

Buzz Shine wrote:In physics there is a theory floating around called string theory that many physicists have criticised as a failed model for the simple reason that it can't be tested. Why waste our precious time on any theory that can never be tested they say? In the McCann case I often wonder if the same principle applies. Why waste precious time on theories that investigators will never investigate? If investigators are never going to investigate them, what chance have they got?

Your post includes Goncalo Amaral, who was not only not allowed to investigate, he suffered the loss of his marriage and his career. His THEORY would have been proved correct, and we wouldn't have this back and forth about what we should and shouldn't be permitted to suggest. It took me years to disabuse myself of man carrying child absolutely being connected to the McCann's; Bluebag pointed out that this man could have been anybody. Of course he could! I saw the light then. It is very fortunate for everybody who wants justice for Madeleine that  Bernt had the wherewithal to move to Portugal, and the knowledge, background and training to carry out his investigation, and present his own theory.

pinkgladioli wrote:Hi Honesty,

Bernt says the following on the James English interview =

“I have a team with 8 persons with dogs”



In conclusion I personally could imagine it would cost a lot of money to fund a search like this

Thank you pinkgladioli. 

Perhaps Bernt will elaborate on this - if he hasnt done so already?  I'm sure that with all the interest in the case, if a fund were set up with a specific goal, the public would respond with their usual generosity.

Cake Lover wrote:

Buzz Shine wrote:In physics there is a theory floating around called string theory that many physicists have criticised as a failed model for the simple reason that it can't be tested. Why waste our precious time on any theory that can never be tested they say? In the McCann case I often wonder if the same principle applies. Why waste precious time on theories that investigators will never investigate? If investigators are never going to investigate them, what chance have they got?

Your post includes Goncalo Amaral, who was not only not allowed to investigate, he suffered the loss of his marriage and his career. His THEORY would have been proved correct, and we wouldn't have this back and forth about what we should and shouldn't be permitted to suggest. It took me years to disabuse myself of man carrying child absolutely being connected to the McCann's; Bluebag pointed out that this man could have been anybody. Of course he could! I saw the light then. It is very fortunate for everybody who wants justice for Madeleine that  Bernt had the wherewithal to move to Portugal, and the knowledge, background and training to carry out his investigation, and present his own theory.

Amaral's theory was the one theory that was designed to be tested in a court of law IMO. It's not Amaral's fault that the McCanns lawyers didn't have the wherewithal to challenge it when they had the chance. But they did have the chance to challenge it. Everyone wants justice for Madeleine, it's just a shame there is no sign of her getting justice in the McCanns' lifetime.  After that, the chance of justice for Madeleine is gone and there's nothing anyone's theory can do to change that. I'd love to be proven wrong but I'd be mad not to be skeptical when it's the Madeleine McCann case I'm discussing.

I think that's why we all need to get behind Bernt and get his investigation concluded one way or another. We can't just let this hang in the air forever now with a load of 'what if's and maybe's'.

Let's get to work and do what we can to help!

Sadly, there is indeed little to no chance of justice for Madeleine, which is disgusting for her, and  disgusting because people have covered their own backsides by lies, corruption, and treachery and will continue to do so until the day they die.

Jill Havern wrote:I think that's why we all need to get behind Bernt and get his investigation concluded one way or another. We can't just let this hang in the air forever now with a load of 'what if's and maybe's'.

Let's get to work and do what we can to help!

You and Petermac have sent copies of the Brick to people who haven't had the decency to acknowledge them, and I don't think you can do much more than  that.  Bernt doesn't seem to need financial help; he seems to be on top of everything , and I assume this includes his own safety. What I wonder is how long can he be the only person making moves? If the 'other side' don't act, and the  various police forces don't act, what then?

crusader wrote:What can we do specifically to help Bern't, I'm in.

Me too  

And I know Peter is on side.

It's Bernt's 'military precision' investigation and he is in daily contact with us. 

From what I have learnt about TFD is that he is a laid back dude and is holding all the aces.

Things are happening, is all I will say at the mo.

Stay positive...because this may well be Maddie's last chance to be laid to rest.

I mention   Madeleine to some people, those I think will be receptive, and while they agree with us, they have lost interest. They have got married, divorced, had children, lost children, lost their parents etc, and time has dimmed the case. It's a shame, but understandable.  Respect to forum members who have been here since Jill started the ball rolling.