Re: Bernt Stellander interview

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.

by AnneCGuedes 11.08.24 16:09

PeterMac wrote: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.

What is that "lot of new evidence" Gonçalo Amaral didn't have ? And why didn't he ? After all he published another book on the case in 2021.

by AnneCGuedes 11.08.24 16:11

crusader wrote: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.

Do you have a link about "they checked on the children, sometimes listening from outside de apartments" ?

by Amy Dean 11.08.24 16:13

Thanks for that, Crusader.

Russell O'Brien's statement is particularly memorable in that he found that his daughter had been sick so he cleaned her up before going back to the meal.

Perhaps it's completely fictional - to go along with the checking narrative. Would any parent really do that; next time the child might choke to death while left alone.

by Ladyinred 11.08.24 16:25

Didn't RO'B also wash the bedding?

Strange parenting all round.

by crusader 11.08.24 16:27

All the tapas 7 statements are in the PJ files where they say they checked on each others children.https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/

Rob washed his child's bedding because she had been sick, they knew she wasn't well before they left her.

by AnneCGuedes 11.08.24 16:43

crusader wrote:All the tapas 7 statements are in the PJ files where they say they checked on each others children.https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/

I don't really need a link to the PJFiles, Crusader ! I meant a link to such statements, because to my knowledge they don't exist !

by crusader 11.08.24 17:14

The PJ files is where I read the statements of the tapas friends who said they checked on each others children.
I don't know of any other statements where it say's they did.
I only go off the statements in the PJ files.
Where is the evidence they didn't check on each other's children.

by crusader 11.08.24 17:45

This is the sort of thing they said in their statements, this is from Jane Tanner's rogatory.

Reply    “Yeah, the same as, yeah the same as, the same as before. I can’t remember who checked when or, you know, I can’t remember when, you know whether it was me or Russell or whoever went back at that point. I don’t, I’m trying to think if by that point we were checking on each other’s…”

4078    “That was part of my next question.”
Reply    “Oh right. Err I mean I didn’t personally, I think, I mean I’ll tell you when I went back I just tended to check on bars and I listened at Matt and Rachael’s, you know at some point we listened at Matt and Rachael’s window and down there but err no I can’t remember, but by that stage I think we were listening but we didn’t, I don’t know whether people actually went in to, to be honest nobody, if we hadn’t gone nobody could have gone in to ours because they’d need the key so when people did check ours they did, they did just listen, so.”

by Amy Dean 11.08.24 17:53

She seems to be away with the fairies.

What are the bars that she tended to check on?

by AnneCGuedes 11.08.24 18:41

crusader wrote:This is the sort of thing they said in their statements, this is from Jane Tanner's rogatory.

Reply    “Yeah, the same as, yeah the same as, the same as before. I can’t remember who checked when or, you know, I can’t remember when, you know whether it was me or Russell or whoever went back at that point. I don’t, I’m trying to think if by that point we were checking on each other’s…”

4078    “That was part of my next question.”
Reply    “Oh right. Err I mean I didn’t personally, I think, I mean I’ll tell you when I went back I just tended to check on bars and I listened at Matt and Rachael’s, you know at some point we listened at Matt and Rachael’s window and down there but err no I can’t remember, but by that stage I think we were listening but we didn’t, I don’t know whether people actually went in to, to be honest nobody, if we hadn’t gone nobody could have gone in to ours because they’d need the key so when people did check ours they did, they did just listen, so.”

This is a rogatory interview in April 2008 (not in the PJFiles), not a statement at the PJ in May 2007. You better read the statements of the group, Crusader, the media did not.

by crusader 11.08.24 18:49

Ok, so the rogatory statements that are included in the PJ files don't count, only the ones taken by the PJ in Portugal?
Got you.

by crusader 11.08.24 19:23

From Gerry's 10th May PJ statement.

On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children. On this day he and KATE had already left the rear door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their colleagues to check on the children.

by crusader 11.08.24 19:43

From Jane Tanners 10th May statement.

[size=30]eanwhile, MO went to check his children and those of GM and KH. According to what he said, he saw the twins but he did not see MBM probably because he did not enter the bedroom. As he heard no noise he left presupposing that all was well, returning to the restaurant. MO told her that ROB had stayed in the bedroom.[/size]

by crusader 11.08.24 19:50

Mathew Oldfield 10th May statement.

[size=30]Benefiting from meeting them next to the residences, he adds that, on his own initiative, he made a 'listening check' at the bedroom window of MBM and the twins at 21h05. That he limited himself to approach the bedroom window on the outside of the apartment to check if the children were crying or awake.[/size]
[size=30]He adds to have not heard any noise nor perceived anything out of the ordinary. He went on to do the same check at the bedroom windows of his daughter and ROB's daughters.[/size]

[size=30]Rachel Oldfield 11th May statement[/size]

[size=30][size=30]At that point, presumably, she cannot be sure, if her husband MATHEW or RUSSEL volunteered to go to see KATE's children, and she them that they would have to enter by the back door, which was unlocked. RUSSEL and MATHEW left at the same time. About five minutes later, MATHEW returned saying that the children were all well,[/size]
[/size]

by AnneCGuedes 12.08.24 0:16

crusader wrote:Ok, so the rogatory statements that are included in the PJ files don't count, only the ones taken by the PJ in Portugal?
Got you.

You got nothing, Crusader. The rogatory are not statements but interviews (the witnesses answered questions). Besides, if you had read the PJFiles, you would know that the rogatory interviews of the group are not included in the PJFiles.
I tend to believe the very clear statements the group made about parents only checking on their own children.

Latest topics