Re: Bernt Stellander interview

by **PeterMac** 05.08.24 21:46

phil_burtonSorry, I simply wasn’t online - have a young family I was making dinner.

I will watch the video again, but I don’t remember much new information - just almost verbatim repetition of Amaral’s book, and many of the theories I have read on here. He even name checks this forum several times.

It is very far from a "repetition of Amaral’s book"
It tears apart - with the benefit of 17 years of analysis and a lot of new evidence which Dr Amaral did not have - the fundamental invented ‘story’ which DCI Amaral had to contend with.
even in the first two ‘half kilos; of the Brick it picks the story apart and then reconstructs in the right order which reveals a new and seriously credible scenario
This new scenario, using much of what the Tapas and the McCanns themselves said and did as the foundation, is compelling.
He pays respect to - or as you disparagingly say “Name Checks” - this forum and several individuals for the contribution they have made to the deeper understanding of the case as a whole, and their dedication to picking apart the lies and deceits which so many have unthinkingly accepted.
I recommend your buying a copy and studying it in detail so you may compare it with your other sources of information and your own research notes
You will find much to interest you.

by Honesty 05.08.24 22:04

crusader wrote:All the other authors of books about Madeleine haven't gone nearly as far as Bernt Stellander.
He's camped out on the Rocher Negra and fitted many field cameras.
I can't wait for the video's to be released showing what he caught, I hope it's sooner rather than later.
If what he say's is true, the McCann's will have a lot of explaining to do.
That in itself is worth him making money from his findings, I begrudge him nothing, I hope he makes a fortune, he will need it if he gets Carter Rucked.

Yes, good luck to Bernt Stellander.

I don't think he needs to worry about being Carter Rucked. I think the days of the McCanns suing people are over.

by GreenTara 06.08.24 8:36

phil_burton wrote:Sorry, I simply wasn’t online - have a young family I was making dinner.

I will watch the video again, but I don’t remember much new information - just almost verbatim repetition of Amaral’s book, and many of the theories I have read on here. He even name checks this forum several times.

Like I said - I hope I’m wrong and that there is more to come from this, I’ve followed this case since the day it happened, and strongly believe Maddie was not abducted and that the McCanns hold the key. I just hope this isn’t a bait and switch to sell books. Perhaps he’ll release a teaser of the footage he has, who knows.

No problem, fixing dinner is perfectly acceptable of course!
I’m struggling to understand how you can be so strong in a such a simplistic view that’s way off the mark. You sound like this view is fixed tho, so not sure there will be much worth in a second watch of the interview.

by **Nina** 06.08.24 10:24

It has arrived. The delivery man said '' Careful love it's heavier than it looks'' so I told him it was nicknamed the brick. He plaited his brows so I told him it was a book. ''Heavy reading then'' he answered grinning at his own joke.

So I'm going in. The spectacles are buffed and the coffee perc is on.

by pinkgladioli 06.08.24 10:36

Nina wrote:It has arrived. The delivery man said '' Careful love it's heavier than it looks'' so I told him it was nicknamed the brick. He plaited his brows so I told him it was a book. ''Heavy reading then'' he answered grinning at his own joke.

So I'm going in. The spectacles are buffed and the coffee perc is on.

I didnt want to dissect my copy into parts (I’m not the best with a Stanley blade,) I found perching the brick on a cushion on my lap I was able to read it quite comfortably Enjoy!

by Amy Dean 06.08.24 10:41

We'll send the dogs out if you don't reappear within a week, Nina.

by GreenTara 06.08.24 11:20

Excited for you Nina! Looking forward to hearing what you make of it. I was the same pinkgladioli, couldn’t chop it up. I too was ok with a cushion. I can see people doing a serious analysis of it would need to chop it tho.

by **AnneCGuedes** 06.08.24 14:58

phil_burton wrote:Sorry, I simply wasn’t online - have a young family I was making dinner.

I will watch the video again, but I don’t remember much new information - just almost verbatim repetition of Amaral’s book, and many of the theories I have read on here. He even name checks this forum several times.

Like I said - I hope I’m wrong and that there is more to come from this, I’ve followed this case since the day it happened, and strongly believe Maddie was not abducted and that the McCanns hold the key. I just hope this isn’t a bait and switch to sell books. Perhaps he’ll release a teaser of the footage he has, who knows.

Did you "strongly believe M wasn't abducted" from day 1 (ie you heard of it via the media) ?

by phil_burton 06.08.24 20:17

No I watched the news closely, and I got a very bad feeling about the parents - that’s what piqued my interest 17 years ago. Obviously, the initial information coming out of Portugal was very contrived - on the one hand we’d got Amaral making them Arguidos and therefore suspects, but the UK media backing the McCanns.

Regarding others posts in reply to mine - I don’t necessarily agree with all the theories on this site (there have been many!), I think the truth lies in a mixture of many of the theories posted here - there’s too much detail to go in to here, but I fundamentally agreed with the logic of Amarals book - he seemed to have the case nailed.

My original post on this thread was simply because I found it strange for there to be another in the long line of people of have profited from this case simply by going over the publicly known facts, and I’m sorry Peter_Mac but I don’t see what Bernt has deconstructed - I listened to the interview (granted I’ve not read the book) but he sounded like he was reading word for word the old “truth of the lie”. Perhaps you could correct me and tell me what *new* information or analyses he brought to the table apart from the as yet unproved discovery of a location containing several ‘markers’ that attracted visits from McCanns and associates.

Like I say, happy to be proven wrong, but no one has yet shown me something that is new.

by **crusader** 06.08.24 21:17

@phil_burton

You are perfectly entitled to voice your opinion, hopefully all will be revealed soon.

by Shash T 07.08.24 14:33

phil_burton wrote:No I watched the news closely, and I got a very bad feeling about the parents - that’s what piqued my interest 17 years ago. Obviously, the initial information coming out of Portugal was very contrived - on the one hand we’d got Amaral making them Arguidos and therefore suspects, but the UK media backing the McCanns.

Regarding others posts in reply to mine - I don’t necessarily agree with all the theories on this site (there have been many!), I think the truth lies in a mixture of many of the theories posted here - there’s too much detail to go in to here, but I fundamentally agreed with the logic of Amarals book - he seemed to have the case nailed.

My original post on this thread was simply because I found it strange for there to be another in the long line of people of have profited from this case simply by going over the publicly known facts, and I’m sorry Peter_Mac but I don’t see what Bernt has deconstructed - I listened to the interview (granted I’ve not read the book) but he sounded like he was reading word for word the old “truth of the lie”. Perhaps you could correct me and tell me what *new* information or analyses he brought to the table apart from the as yet unproved discovery of a location containing several ‘markers’ that attracted visits from McCanns and associates.

Like I say, happy to be proven wrong, but no one has yet shown me something that is new.

The Book is in two parts. The first part basically puts the events in an order based on what was said in the PJ files, McCann tv/media interviews, and their bewk, and makes sense of it all. The video interview seems to be based on part one of the Book. So, yes, as far as part one is concerned it doesn't tell "us" (the people who have followed/studied the case for many years) anything new, but has been enormously helpful in making sense of what was done/said by Team McCann, and why. In my opinion. But, I believe this part one, and the interview, is more for the benefit of those who have not followed the "real" story. It also gives "us" hope that finally there will be justice for Madeleine.

Part two is about how he, the Foreign Detective, went about finding the grave. He hasn't given us all the details yet, as he is waiting to release his videos and photos, which, hopefully, will prove where Madeleine is buried.

And now we wait for justice!

All my opinion.

by **crusader** 07.08.24 16:02

One thing that makes no sense to me is, if he thinks he has found the place where Madeleine is buried, why didn't he dig there.
He told the police about one place he thought she was buried but they found nothing.
If I had gone to all the trouble he has and I thought I had found Madeleine's grave, I would have dug there until I found it or not.
I was under the impression that was what it was all about.
It's not a criticism of Stellander, it's just an observation, he has his reasons which hopefully will be revealed soon.

by pablowski 07.08.24 17:04

I don't think Bernt is in it for fame or money [I might be wrong]. I think it is an interesting piece of work carried out by a guy who has had the persistence and determination to see through this project which will have involved a lot of data crunching. And Bernt has gone out of his way to say that Goncalo Amaral was correct in his thinking [timeline aside] - so, yes, there is a lot of Amaral stuff in there. And, he has also acknowledged the great pioneering work of Richard D Hall.

2 main things for me

1] The story and the new timeline

I think he has looked at a lot of the McCann data in detail and has told his story very convincingly. It is not a fact it is a theorem. Plausible. Interesting. Based on assumptions. The repetition, for me, fogs things a bit. I would like the whole thing to be summarized and the justification for the assumptions made crystal clear. If you think he has, then OK, mea culpa.

2] The grave location

I found this part of the book difficult to follow clearly.

I have to say, I was not overly convinced by the author's narrative in this part of the brick. It might be correct, it might not be. As others have said - maybe photos and videos will add more substance to these claims.

Nevertheless, the key thing for me is his assumption-based [is it evidence-based?] hypothesis re what happened that night that he has laid out before us.

And, for me, what is missing in all of this story is how did this event generate such an extremely rapid, high level intelligence/political input?

And, for the Tapas 9 to have maintained their pact of silence for so many years is quite incredible. Bernt gives a decent explanation for this. But still...

Abduction or accident - neither diagnosis excuses neglect.

by **Jill Havern** 10.08.24 4:33

Deception Detective: How to ANALYZE a THEORY

4,137 views Aug 9, 2024 Deception Detective Podcast
Investigator Bernt Stellander (AKA "Foreign Detective") claims to know where Madeleine McCann is buried. But is his theory credible? Let’s react to his recent interview with James English (‪@JamesEnglish‬) to find out.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 10.08.24 6:34

pablowski wrote:Abduction or accident - neither diagnosis excuses neglect.

Abduction is impossible.

by Paddingtom 11.08.24 8:09

watched the deception detective last night disecting Bernts interview.
He was a bit harsh wasnt he?   He didnt seem to get that Bernt had to be annonomous initially to test the water.

He only did a little bit of the interview, perhaps if he does more he will understand why Bernt took the approach he did.

However it would seem that he has done a lot of work previously on the Mccanns.
He said that he and his subscribers had come to the conclusion that MM had ended up in a dark place such as a Cave!!!;;;;I nearly choked on my Pizza!!!     A cave??? Those with kindle to to page 1044!!!

Ive tried to watch the DD before but found his constant interruptions too irritating. But having rediscovered him I decided to watch more of his analysis of the Mccanns. It was interesting.
Whilst listening to him talking about the curtains whooshing open, I had a bit of an epiphany.
What if their constant talking about how open the door was, really was significant.?

Lets imagine theyve almost closed the bedroom door, not completely, but just enough to let some light from the lounge in.
Then theyve gone out.
Theyve come back a few hours later and entered the lounge and the door is wide open!!! What a shock!!! why woukld the door be wide open? Frantic checking would ensue.

In the interview that the DD analyses, GM says something to the effect of being pleased to see the twins happily sleeping and then within minutes their peace was shattered. I suspect they went into the bedroom and saw the twins were fine but that MM wasnt in her bed. We all know what happened next.
Its awful imagining it.

MM had obviously woken up and wandered into the lounge looking for her parents.

That moment of realisation that something was seriously amiss would never leave you. No wonder the door being open was so significant.

by Amy Dean 11.08.24 8:17

From memory, Kate said the door was "not as we left it" which set off the alarms. However, one of the friends (Matt Oldfield I think) had supposedly been in the apartment earlier (the friends were checking on each other's children) so how could she have known whether he left the door open or shut.

by **Ladyinred** 11.08.24 8:28

Yes, and MO wasn't sure whether Madeleine was in her bed or not on his "check".

by Cake Lover 11.08.24 8:51

The D.D. doesn't appear to appreciate how careful Bernt has to be with what he says, imo. There's no point in telling all, when there's yet to be a website published. He has organised how everything will unfold in his own way.

by pinkgladioli 11.08.24 9:10

I wasn’t impressed with DD and what he said, from what he said I don’t think he has read the case files, he concluded his analyse after Bernt mentioned the Gasper statements, by saying he had heard about the Gaspers on X although hadn’t seen the recording or text ( words to that effect)
He also mentioned that Bernt could have went to the tabloid’s rather than write the book
Personally I think DD is one that is capable of falling in love with his own theory especially when hasn’t done his homework over many years like oor Bernt!

by Amy Dean 11.08.24 10:09

I like DD generally but he has said on more than one occasion that he left YouTube for a while but came back to correct false things that were being said elsewhere. I don't think he was referring to any specific topics but it does make him sound like various undesirables (particularly Marianna Spring!) whose mission is to stop "false" information from being published.

by Paddingtom 11.08.24 10:09

respect to you Amy and Ladyinred. but Im sorry, I simply dont belive anyone did any checking. Definately not in the flat, although maybe listened outside.

I think the mccanns almost shut the door and MM opened it.

by Amy Dean 11.08.24 10:13

Don't worry, the checking system has never seemed believable to me.

by deepeepee 11.08.24 10:18

pinkgladioli wrote:I wasn’t impressed with DD and what he said, from what he said I don’t think he has read the case files, he concluded his analyse after Bernt mentioned the Gasper statements, by saying he had heard about the Gaspers on X although hadn’t seen the recording or text ( words to that effect)
He also mentioned that Bernt could have went to the tabloid’s rather than write the book
Personally I think DD is one that is capable of falling in love with his own theory especially when hasn’t done his homework over many years like oor Bernt!

I think he will adapt/develop his analysis as he listens to more of the interview.

What he does is just specifically analyse the words people use in order to pick up deception and he often says he doesn't like to to know all about a case he is analysing. That means not really researching the case before as it may influence (or distract from) his attention to the words and what is really behind their use by the person.

It can be annoying sometimes for those who have researched a case for a long time like many here but it can also being insights that may not be discovered by other methods.

Think of it like one part of a team of specialists trying to get information using their particular skills to aid in the better understanding of the whole picture.

It may well bring up things which are not easily found otherwise.

by **PeterMac** 11.08.24 11:38

I think that Bernt Stellander is planning to do a second interview, perhaps filling in some gaps, and answering some of the questions that have cropped up.

by pablowski 11.08.24 14:37

I like the deception detective and I like his technique. He analyzes what people say. So, whether he has read the brick or not should be relevant to his assessment. In fact, if he has read the book [and agrees with Bernt's hypotheses], then this may introduce observer bias to his assessment.

As we know, DD thinks that the chid died by accident and that the McCann's hid the body. So, there is not conflict in the anti-abduction viewpoint.

Where DD was expressing concern was over the lack of specific details re the evidence Bernt offers about his hillside detective work. In particular, the woolly nature of how Bernt verbally describes what happened about this in the Anything Goes video. And, as I have said before, I did not find that part of the book very convincing. It was woolly.

And, to me, whilst catching a McCann rabbit in a Stellender trap would be thrilling, I don't see it happening any time soon. But, happy to watch the videos when Bernt lets us see them. And, I don't think it really matters any way. I think Bernt has added a lot of interesting dimensions to the non-abduction hypothesis and his theory seems very reasonable, plausible and possible.

Early days re the DD dissection of BS and the AG interview: I think that DD will continue to analyze the video and maybe his opinions about BS will be different on the timeline hypothesis angle versus the camera-in-a-tree angle.

by **Jill Havern** 11.08.24 14:47

Stuff is still going on with Bernt's investigation, and that's all I will say at the moment.

Except this....

Be patient, he knows exactly what he's doing.

by Cake Lover 11.08.24 15:02

The P.J. would have ignored him if they thought his investigation was rubbish.

by **AnneCGuedes** 11.08.24 15:35

Amy Dean wrote:From memory, Kate said the door was "not as we left it" which set off the alarms. However, one of the friends (Matt Oldfield I think) had supposedly been in the apartment earlier (the friends were checking on each other's children) so how could she have known whether he left the door open or shut.

The "friends" were NOT checking on each other's children, that's a media invention. Had they been friends, they likely would have done that, but they were only acqaintances (except for the Paynes), the kids hardly knew them.

by **crusader** 11.08.24 15:57

The friend's statements say's they checked on on the children, sometimes listening from outside the apartments, so that wasn't a media invention.
The McCann's didn't check anyone else's children.

Latest topics