Bernt Stellander interview

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 ?

Nina wrote:And some people are now posting that they will not be buying the book because of what the vocal critics are saying.

Jill Havern wrote:

Nina wrote:And some people are now posting that they will not be buying the book because of what the vocal critics are saying.

Sod them then 

AnneCGuedes wrote:

Honesty wrote:
But I am sorry to say that I think people will expect to see results or the doubting Thomas's will multiply.

Thomas doesn't only want to see, he wants to touch.

Honesty wrote:

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

Lizzy is getting in a tizzy

She hasn't read the book, has barely watched the interview and instead of being curious about where this investigation may, or may not, lead she's admitted that her discrediting of Bernt's book is about her credibility.

If by discredit you mean to harm the good reputation of, how has Lizzie done this?

I am sorry to say this, but didn't Bernt admit he hadn't read Goncarlo Amaral's book?