Re: Bernt Stellander interview

by **Nina** 29.08.24 15:20

AnneCGuedes wrote:You don't bury bodies wrapped in plastic bags in a cemetery, only coffins or urns. In Portugal, if the body is not taken to the mortuary, it must be buried within 24 hours. What about insect squads? https://entomologytoday.org/2017/10/03/the-flies-and-beetles-that-turn-death-into-dinner/

And of course there is what is happening inside the body within minutes of death. There are many sites that will explain this natural process.

by **PeterMac** 29.08.24 16:38

PeterMac wrote:One of the vocal critics is one Paul James, who has posted on the various FB pages
He refers readers to his book, which on examination has not yet been published, or is not available for sale

My reply this morning was this

"I accept that you have firm and apparently unshakeable beliefs about what did happen.
You state : QUOTE: Once more for the record:
Madeleine was 'not' taken to and stored in the cemetery? This did not take place and is not true.
Madeleine was 'not' taken to the top of the Rocha Negra for burial? This did not take place and is not true. END

The implication is that to be so certain, so sure, that these are not true, you have unique access to the Truth
Could you give us the facts on which you rely to make these statements.
By which I mean irrefutable FACTS and not your individual beliefs or suppositions based on second or third hand evidence"

We shall all be interested in his evidence of what did happen.

And this morning, prompted by another question from Hema Patel he posted this on the CMoMM FB

"Good morning Hema Saveer Patel and thank you for your views and question.
Personally speaking, can I politely say, it would be more accurately phrased to say that I speak from the standpoint of common sense 'in conjunction with', police forensic evidence, the forensic evidence taking the lead of course.
Yes, I can say with 'absolute certainty' that Madeleine was 'not' stored in the cemetery and was 'not' buried up on that hill. Have you read my two posts regarding the cemetery (posted 17 May ) and the Rocha Negra, (posted 3 June)? You can easily find these on my page.
Regarding the forensic material and what was said by the police regarding the material recovered from the back of the hire car? This is all on the internet for anyone to read. And it is this discovery 'alone' which puts pay to the ridiculous idea that Madeleine was stored in the cemetery for weeks, a few minutes walk from 5A, and in the opposite direction of the Smith sighting. And this sighting is a vitally important piece of eye witness testimony, which in order to make Bernie's version of the story sound more plausible, it is completely disregarded as 'irrelevant'.
Therefore, based on the forensic material (alone) found in the back of the hire car, the storing of the body in the cemetery 'never took place'.
END

In other words, it is nothing more than his personal opinion, based on a slavish adherence to the Smithman Creed

He has No Evidence, No Facts, No logical progression, Just a personal gut feeling that he believes something – Smithman – which on any test is highly controversial, to say the least, and on that basis dismisses and condemns almost as Untruth the conclusions someone else arrived at after 7 years of investigation and field work.

But he has a book coming out.
And on this evidence it is likely that it will promote Smithman, a belief to which Bernt's Theory is fatal.

I shall be ordering a copy so soon as it is released, and will treat it in the same way I did all the others. Examine it closely, read it more than once, and then dissect it – physically if necessary
and "having Plucked the entrails of the offering forth, will try to find a heart within the beast." [Shakespeare. Caesar Act 1, Sc.2 line 42/3. EDITED (heavily big grin

). ]

by **crusader** 29.08.24 16:52

What does Paul James think happened to Madeleine, abduction or accident and hidden by her parents?
I've never heard of him.

by **Jill Havern** 29.08.24 17:01

by **crusader** 29.08.24 17:05

Is that supposed to be Kate McCann doing her praying Arab thing. laugh

by **Jill Havern** 29.08.24 17:10

It's ironic that Paul discredits Bernt's book, but uses the word 'murder' in the title of his own book when there's no evidence of that.

think

by pinkgladioli 29.08.24 17:18

and uses statue thing that looks like a grave to promote his unpublished writing

by GreenTara 29.08.24 17:20

Personally, I don’t rate Paul James’ comments worthy enough to be engaging in dialogue with him. However, I think it is important that his comments are publically challenged, so that other readers with maybe a little more cognitive ability might read them.

by **crusader** 29.08.24 17:35

Has he been Carter Rucked? that title is far worse than anything G. Amaral said or printed.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 29.08.24 17:43

Pushing Smithman despite the fact it's a ridiculous theory with no evidence except Smith's Gerry getting off a plane carrying a child the way normal people carry a child.

Plenty of sound reasons why it wasn't Gerry.

by Honesty 29.08.24 18:06

Verity wrote:
Honesty wrote:
Verity wrote:

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?
Do you not think that by encouraging many thousands of members on various FB groups that Bernt is a phoney, without even having read the free book he's sent her or watched his JE interview, that she's not harming his reputation at the expense of her own credibility?

How can she give an opinion on something she hasn't even read? She has no idea what's in the book because she hasn't even received it yet.

I don't do FB so was surprised to hear you state that Lizzie is presenting Bernt as "a phoney".

I've read your post 27.08.24 8:17 and see that Lizzie stated she was "pleased to see The Sudden Impulse....was getting the info....out to the public".

Lizzie also stated under the same post that her judgements had been made from Bernt's interview with JE and his promotional video, which she quotes from verbatim, even including Bernt's little "uhs", etc.

Surely, the most important factor about all this is the search for the truth, regardless of who speaks it, and the attainment of the outcome we have all hoped for for so long.

by **AnneCGuedes** 29.08.24 18:08

crusader wrote:Has he been Carter Rucked? that title is far worse than anything G. Amaral said or printed.

It's defamation. It wouldn't be accepted in a Court of Justice unless he brings evidence of it.

by **AnneCGuedes** 29.08.24 18:17

Honesty wrote:

I've read your post 27.08.24 8:17 and see that Lizzie stated she was "pleased to see The Sudden Impulse....was getting the info....out to the public".

Lizzie also stated under the same post that her judgements had been made from Bernt's interview with JE and his promotional video, which she quotes from verbatim, even including Bernt's little "uhs", etc.

Surely, the most important factor about all this is the search for the truth, regardless of who speaks it, and the attainment of the outcome we have all hoped for for so long.

That sounds common decency ! I agree with some of Lizzie's points (I don't do FB as well, discovered her comments on CMOMM), but not with death's date (hence I disagree with Pat Brown also). I'm convinced that M didn't see the sun rise on May 3.

by Justice for Maddie 29.08.24 18:20

Jill Havern wrote:

The book cover is interesting. Did he find out something? Did he investigate like BS?
The police found that book in the McCann's apartment right? thinking

Bernt Stellander interview - Page 12 712dli10

by **AnneCGuedes** 29.08.24 18:21

Bluebagthepirate wrote: carrying a child the way normal people carry a child.

There's a word in Martin S's statement that should have attracted your attention. Perhaps read it again..

by **Bluebagthepirate** 29.08.24 18:25

AnneCGuedes wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote: carrying a child the way normal people carry a child.

There's a word in Martin S's statement that should have attracted your attention. Perhaps read it again..

There's pictures of gerry actually getting off the plane. Perhaps look at them again...

by **AnneCGuedes** 29.08.24 18:28

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
AnneCGuedes wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote: carrying a child the way normal people carry a child.

There's a word in Martin S's statement that should have attracted your attention. Perhaps read it again..
There's pictures of gerry actually getting off the plane. Perhaps look at them again...

Sure, sure, lol !

by Verity 29.08.24 18:32

Honesty wrote:
Verity wrote:
Honesty wrote:
Verity wrote:

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?
Do you not think that by encouraging many thousands of members on various FB groups that Bernt is a phoney, without even having read the free book he's sent her or watched his JE interview, that she's not harming his reputation at the expense of her own credibility?

How can she give an opinion on something she hasn't even read? She has no idea what's in the book because she hasn't even received it yet.
I don't do FB so was surprised to hear you state that Lizzie is presenting Bernt as "a phoney".

I've read your post 27.08.24 8:17 and see that Lizzie stated she was "pleased to see The Sudden Impulse....was getting the info....out to the public".

Lizzie also stated under the same post that her judgements had been made from Bernt's interview with JE and his promotional video, which she quotes from verbatim, even including Bernt's little "uhs", etc.

Surely, the most important factor about all this is the search for the truth, regardless of who speaks it, and the attainment of the outcome we have all hoped for for so long.

Bernt Stellander interview - Page 12 Lizzy110

Looks like she changed her mind before reading Bernt's free book and how he arrived at his conclusions.

I didn't say she said he was a phoney, but what else can be interpreted from her posts and the reactions she's getting from members who say they will not now read the book? She's certainly insinuating that he's a liar (phoney) and members are blindly believing him AKA don't buy the book.

She says this is about her credibility. In other words, believe me not him.

OK, she's read the files but has she done a 7 year field investigation with cameras that could change the course of the case? We don't know yet, so why discredit his work before we know the full facts?

by GreenTara 29.08.24 19:08

Honesty wrote:
Verity wrote:
Honesty wrote:
Verity wrote:

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?
Do you not think that by encouraging many thousands of members on various FB groups that Bernt is a phoney, without even having read the free book he's sent her or watched his JE interview, that she's not harming his reputation at the expense of her own credibility?

How can she give an opinion on something she hasn't even read? She has no idea what's in the book because she hasn't even received it yet.
I don't do FB so was surprised to hear you state that Lizzie is presenting Bernt as "a phoney".

I've read your post 27.08.24 8:17 and see that Lizzie stated she was "pleased to see The Sudden Impulse....was getting the info....out to the public".

Lizzie also stated under the same post that her judgements had been made from Bernt's interview with JE and his promotional video, which she quotes from verbatim, even including Bernt's little "uhs", etc.

Surely, the most important factor about all this is the search for the truth, regardless of who speaks it, and the attainment of the outcome we have all hoped for for so long.

She only admitted it was a good thing that he was getting info out to the public, when she was challenged about overlooking this fact. She did not mention it prior to being challenged.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 29.08.24 19:09

Sadly I think she thinks this is about her.
We are all on the same side whether you have been looking at this for 17 years (like many of us) or not.
She needs to read the book and hope Bernt has cracked it.

by **Jill Havern** 29.08.24 19:24

There's no denying Lizzy has done some great research but, sadly, none of her videos will get the case reopened.

What Bernt is doing is pressuring the PJ to take a close look at the sites he has identified.

What on earth is wrong with that? This case needs some physical activity to even come close to getting the case reopened and investigated properly.

MMRG has been active with all our letters to the authorities, but this case needs something physical now, boots on the ground.

Which is what Bernt is doing!

bow2

by Jojo1 30.08.24 4:44

I took a step back from Facebook groups of late because the sniping and criticisms between members on the various threads was uncomfortable and painful to watch. What it looked like was 'division' instead of a 'coming together'. The focus on Madeleine was getting lost somehow. IMO we should be embracing the hard work and research by everyone in order to get justice for that little girl. It is not a competition about who has put in the most work or who has produced the best piece of research or who has written the best books and so forth. What everyone has done and still doing is darn amazing. Admittedly I am a little biased and think Bernt is onto something. Jill is right in what she says in that this case needs something physical now and Bernt is doing that. His proactive approach so far is genious and i cannot wait to hear about what comes next.

by **Jill Havern** 30.08.24 5:07

Thank you Jojo and welcome to the forum.

Let's face it
FOIs havent worked
Petitions haven't worked
Letters with evidence to the authorities haven't worked
Books haven't worked
Videos haven't worked
Blogs haven't worked
Facebook groups haven't worked
Forums haven't worked
Hashtags on twitter haven't worked
Podcasts haven't worked

I am sooo excited at what Bernt is doing - he's undeterred by the spiteful critics on Facebook groups - Peter will announce in due course what's coming next.

Get 'em Bernt !

celebrate

by Justice for Maddie 30.08.24 6:54

So what's next? I hope the digging starts soon. Maddie deserves a Justice.

by **PeterMac** 30.08.24 10:14

Jojo1 wrote:I took a step back from Facebook groups of late because the sniping and criticisms between members on the various threads was uncomfortable and painful to watch. .

Sadly that seems to be the trend, as I observed a few days ago on this Forum

What is striking is how many of the critics openly confess that they have not read Bernt's Book, and even say they have no intention of doing so.
Look closer and we find that some have themselves written books, or have their own FB groups in which they have nailed their colours to specific dates and exact scenarios,
to which Bernt's new way of interpreting statements and evidence would be FATAL.

We can see a parallel in Clarke's recent articles in the Olive Press, where his desperation is clear, and he is STILL writing that
"Another key frustration for prosecutors – who are expected to announce a trial date against Brueckner in the Madeleine case this Autumn . ." [7 August OP]
This was in an article about the BKA profiler who was talking about the similarities among the cases, but who in fact was shredded by the judges when they made a number of observations about the Gross DIFFERENCES between them.
IF Brücker is found legally not Guilty of the current charges, and IF it follows that no further action will be taken against him relating to Madeleine McCann, then Clarke will look not only a fool, but will be seen to have wasted years of his life, tens of thousands of Euros, doing nothing more than chasing a Quixotic windmill
The issues of Defamation and vindictiveness towards an innocent man have never troubled Clarke, as we saw with his hounding and libelling of Murat, and of Kidman and Law.
He merely made lots of money out of those egregious incidents

To quote from my own Chapter 48
"The most famous Hunter of Monsters in Spain was Miguel de Cervantes’ “Don Quixote”. (1605). El Quixote’s exploits riding aimlessly across the plains of La Mancha on a quest never fully explained, attacking wine-skins and tilting at windmills insanely believing them to be monsters and giants, are familiar to all.
Now we have our modern incarnation, driving back and forth across Europe, imagining everyone with a disability to be guilty, and everyone with an alternative lifestyle to be a monster who has stolen, kidnapped, raped and murdered a whole series of small children and old age pensioners from the furthest south-west coast of Portugal to the northernmost regions of Germany, and probably beyond.

We speak loosely of a person being a ‘one-man crime-wave’. Don Clarke-ote clearly wishes to go down in history as the ‘one-man crime-solver’ of all outstanding crimes across Europe....

The whole piece is devoted to Clarke’s quest, as is his book and almost every article written by or about him. “He began to follow the little girl's trail through Portugal, Spain or Germany… “
Jon Quixote, the modern Knight-errant, secure in the belief that he alone has the truth, knows the way, and is determined to find and rescue his Emperatrix Doña Madeleine Dulcinea del Toboso y Rothley.. . "

To all the critics who have their own books, or websites or FB pages and have stated their own Fixed and immoveable positions on times and dates and scenarios . . .
only ONE of you can be right, and it may well be that NONE of you is.

Better, surely, to keep an open mind.
And better, surely, before criticising another theory - to have actually READ IT and understood the logical process involved.

by **PeterMac** 30.08.24 11:25

I can't wait to read Paul James' book, featured above ^

His replies to my and Hema Patel's questions and comments this morning on the CMoMM FB page lead me to suspect he believes that Smithman was Gerry, carrying the freshly dead and still warm, bloodied and leaking body of his daughter, uncovered and unprotected, round the streets of PdL looking for somewhere to put her in the few minutes which remained before the police were alerted.

I really want to understand his proposed timeline, his suggestion for the hiding place, and his proposal for the final disposal method and location. And of course to look at and consider the evidence on which he bases his conclusions.

by **AnneCGuedes** 30.08.24 12:17

PeterMac wrote:he believes that Smithman was Gerry, carrying the freshly dead and still warm, bloodied and leaking body of his daughter

That's my opinion too, except for the "fresly dead" (dead for over 20 hours) and "still warm" (cold) not "bloodied and leaking"...
Smithman was very unlucky to cross 9 people coming back home, the probability was almost null at this time and period of the year (I went there with Pat Brown and observed).

by **Bluebagthepirate** 30.08.24 12:29

It's not "unlucky" to bump into people on a street leading to bars and restaurants. It's a probability and one no one would take considering it was all kicking off 400 metres away. Gerry had already bumped into Jez 45 minutes before. He's not an idiot,

by **PeterMac** 30.08.24 12:48

AnneCGuedes wrote:
PeterMac wrote:he believes that Smithman was Gerry, carrying the freshly dead and still warm, bloodied and leaking body of his daughter

That's my opinion too, except for the "fresly dead" (dead for over 20 hours) and "still warm" (cold) not "bloodied and leaking"...
Smithman was very unlucky to cross 9 people coming back home, the probability was almost null at this time and period of the year (I went there with Pat Brown and observed).

Death on Wednesday 2nd then, or very early hours of 3rd ?

I hadn't realised you visited with Pat B. When was that ?

by **crusader** 30.08.24 12:51

Whoever it was carrying a child, only bumped into the Smith family, no other reported sightings that night.
And it wasn't Tannerman, who had long collar length hair.

Latest topics