Bernt Stellander interview

If there's a media injunction and police instructed to ignore anything new, how could there be progress?
Just curious as to what could be expected?
Perhaps for Honesty to read the book

One thing new would be certain people admitting the fallacy of smithman being Gerry so forces can unite to bring the public to put pressure the right places. But that means following me, and nothing could be worse....than admitting they were wrong and wasted over a decade in the biggest blind spot ever. Conveniently being led by changed statements and not scrutinizing Mr Smiths timeline like they did the tapas gang. Every theory has to fit Gerry being Smithman, everyone else is cast away in the gutter even suggesting the man they saw was irrelevant. 

Sadly egos make them rather only wanting to be right, than the truth coming out. 
Prestige captures the human mind to the core. 
I say, be like Peter Mac. The most thorough and brightest of them all, yet able to analyse new data, analysis and information, and parking his old theory and his ego gently in a room that doesn't have to be dark, for someone who simply has put up a better puzzle board, which is tested to it's limit, and he's let his  compass for truth, justice and integrity guide his actions.

It's of course very impressive what he's done, and how hard he tried to prove me wrong. 

So I say again, be like Peter Mac. Not because I have to be right, but because you trust that he is, and simply deal with it. 

And to those who argues intensively yet don't bother reading the book, ask yourself why I'm so confident. Could my confidence have anything to do with the next podcast?

Nothing is more annoying than a know it all. But someone has to be right, right. And in most cases there is only one truth. And in this case there happens to be only one true timeline. The beauty of my timeline is that it fulfills every common sense and has Occams Razor written all over it. The uglyness of my timeline is only that it doesn't match yours or implements a Smithman being Gerry. That should be something for anyone to adjust their compass by.

And to those who think I just popped into the picture out of nowhere, I need remind you what I've done on site and been through over seven years. So it's not carved in granite that those who spent the most time in years in the case owns the right to be right. But they do own the right for the biggest adjustment of their moral compass once the truth is out.

I dare claim the even though I "only" spent seven years on this, that no one else of the 17 years Club are even close to what I put into this time wise, financially and boot on the ground in the actual area. There's no reward for that and who cares anyways. The only thing that matters is how well one can argue for their conclusions.

No one can argue better for concrete details and reflections than Peter Mac, and he can see a pin hole and immediately look into the abyss of bullshit and call it, no matter how tiny the pin hole is. Being able to see past his own conclusion, by learning a new way of looking at the evidence, and acknowledging what minute details that fit into the new puzzle board, he still prefers the image of truth, no matter how he's stand was before this amateur got his brick released. 

I'm just the dude that got it right, that's all!

The mccs didn't show at the vigil because of the email I sent to Kate and because they'd seen the book presentation at the launch, thinking it could be over. A meeting was called in to ensure the media won't open up the brick of worms.

No need for rudeness.

He won't be back again.

I'm not hosting people like that.

Exactly!   


This is NOT facebook.

I personally invited Bernt to join us, the least we can do is be civil.

Honesty,

Why would Gerry be so stupid as to wander around near bars and restaurants when he could bump into people he knew just like he did 45 minutes earlier with Jez?

Smithman has been shown to be ridiculous over and over.

It's irrelevant.

Perhaps wait for the next Podcast Interview before digging your individual trenches.

crusader wrote:Bern't sings PeterMacs praises and he's never steered us wrong so I wait with bated breath for the next podcast.
If PerterMac is fully on board, it must be worth waiting for.

Yes, I hope we will get closer to the truth.

Honesty. 
Sure, I have no problem with critical thinking or critique. But it has to be based on arguments and the case I present in the book, not myself sick as a dog on a three hour podcast without breaks going off the leash.
Pat obviously didn't read my book, just whimmed through it. A review is normally presenting the theories, and arguing against it based on the arguments backing up those theories. That didn't happen. The only argument she came up with was the word nonsense. 

When I mentioned the words "following me", it was meant that if you finally deny smithgerryman, you'd be placed in the box of "following Bernt", which it's becoming clear is like supporting the evil one. 

I actually enjoy good counter arguments to the point that I'll flip in a second if I'm proven wrong. Truth is all that matters. 

My point was that Peter's been destroying smithgerryman with fork, spoon, knife and tea spoon, yet it's like people don't accept great arguments or facts anymore. That's why he's using the words religion and cult, because that's per definition smithgerryman has become. 

The worst deduction I've ever seen by a profiler is Pats argument for that being Gerry; - the mccs response. 
Their response has a very logical alternative interpretation, which is that any other observation leading us away from Tannernan, their own designed abductor, is not good for their own narrative and timeline. Second, Smith sketching his own conviction, after having seen Gerry's face on the front page every day, does not only have zero evidencial value, it is a huge distraction and could get people to doubt the mccs narrative about Tannerman. Totally expected behavior by the mccs in the situation we all agree on, that there was no abduction, and that Jane wasn't there to see Tannerman. Using those two totally logical reasons for them to ignore those inconvenient distractions from the narrative, as indications or even evidence of that being Gerry, is an insult to deductive reasoning, intelligence and common sense. 
How can you sketch someone so detailed months later, when you initially say you would not recognise the person, not even on photos.....and sketching a front view, when you basically saw a person of zero interest from an angle of 33 to 60 degrees for two seconds max, while walking uphill in the dark on a bad surface after having had at least six units of alcohol, trying not to bury your nose in the tarmac. 

It's funny when someone shows confidence, it has a tendency to make the turds float to the surface. That's just how I roll. I find it entertaining and it's a way to know who you're "around". 

Just look at the reaction when someone says smithman is a distraction and is irrelevant. 

Pat, Isabelle and others have still been intellectually honest and admitting that IF it happened earlier than evening of May 3rd, then of course smithman couldn't have been Gerry.

So let's see if they step out of the trenches, or simply are in a cult. 

After Peter's chapter 63 they should already have questioned their own theories, but they won't even look at it, because if they did, they would moderate their cultish behavior. Instead they pretend his arguments don't exist, and keep on attacking me. I'm loving it BTW. 

Soon we will find out...

And of course there's only one true timeline! 

1) I used the words "impossible find" as several police detectives have used those words. I think even Peter Bleksley used them. 

2) of course anyone can ask me anything.

And you should read the book in which a theory is presented, to avoid being called ignorant for debating content you haven't seen.

Bluebagthepirate wrote:Honesty,

Why would Gerry be so stupid as to wander around near bars and restaurants when he could bump into people he knew just like he did 45 minutes earlier with Jez?

Smithman has been shown to be ridiculous over and over.

It's irrelevant.

I believe the Smith's saw a male carrying a child.Maybe that could have been Russel O'Brien with his daughter to give credence to the abduction claims of the McCanns.
One thing that has seemed peculiar to me was the high level response from the U.K. government,media and other authorities to shelter them from the onset.Which leads me to the possibility that there was some sort of governmental IVF/cloning involving the Tapas couples.Just a theory.

Jazaga. 
You're applying for cult membership
You see how desparate people are trying to fit smithman into the picture....
If it wasn't Gerry, then it had to be someone else in the group, which throws OCCAM'S RAZOR over board. 
I think you're application will go through no offense

Keep it simple. 
You started off really well with they saw a man carrying a child. That's where you should have stopped. And I agree. They saw a man carrying a child .

This distraction is the main reason why no one (including Amaral) discovered the real timeline in 17 years. 

The government help also has a possible simple explanation. Home office does background checks, then Gordon Brown steps in to help fellow "humans"....  being aware of the Gaspar statements. 

(M had been dead for 21 hours already)

Crusader. 
... and as we learned through evidence from independant witness statements, the alarm was likely half hour earlier and also the Smith group at the point of sight between half and an hour later than reported.
It's very weird that cultists don't even consider that evidence. And that's without taking observations of Gerry pretending to be searching around the pool and playground area and  telling the staff where to search (garbage bins under cars etc) into consideration. And Gerry speaking to Mrs Fenn when she offered to call the police. It's very hard to be two places at the same time. Only cultists can make that happen. It's magic.

jazega wrote:

Bluebagthepirate wrote:Honesty,

Why would Gerry be so stupid as to wander around near bars and restaurants when he could bump into people he knew just like he did 45 minutes earlier with Jez?

Smithman has been shown to be ridiculous over and over.

It's irrelevant.

I believe the Smith's saw a male carrying a child.Maybe that could have been Russel O'Brien with his daughter to give credence to the abduction claims of the McCanns.
One thing that has seemed peculiar to me was the high level response from the U.K. government,media and other authorities to shelter them from the onset.Which leads me to the possibility that there was some sort of governmental IVF/cloning involving the Tapas couples.Just a theory.

The Tapas/doctors group vacation trip to Portugal was weird and we know that Maddie was an IVF child, but I don't think that a "cloning" thing was going on.

Crusader. 
There are numerous totally reasonable explanations as to why the man hasnt stepped forward. 
He could be there "illegally", like on benefits or sick leave where he's supposed to be somewhere else, just to mention one. Only imagination sets a limit as to why. Another simple one is that he simply didn't want to get dragged into this big media thing or simply isn't aware he was the one, BECAUSE HE WAS THERE ALMOST ONE HOUR LATER..... 🧐

deepeepee. 
I understand, but things evolve from something simple.
Once a government official has set things in motion, there is no turning back, especially when SA could reflect back on you for taking the step to assist.

crusader wrote:I was at one time convinced it was Gerry the Smith family saw, especially after the 2nd statement.
Simply because I thought why would they lie, they had nothing to gain.
So part of what they said is true, at 10pm on 3rd May 07 they saw a man with a child and that the man didn't look like a tourist.
Perhaps that man never came forward because he couldn't read or speak English so he wouldn't know anything about the Smith sighting, only that a child was missing.

Lol, all the inhabitants of PdL speak the lingua franca (at least the globish) since they gave up their traditional activities to work in the tourist industry.
The caricature of a male tourist is wearing shorts and sandals.
But Smithman may have been an opportunistic kidnapper, who just happened to have the look of G...

deepeepee wrote:
I have no idea what may be behind it all, of course. Occam's razor, yes please but this is evidence of more going on.

"He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount.", a Chinese proverb says. Once a dangerous or troublesome venture is begun, the safest course is to carry it through to the end, The venture was to believe unconditionally in the kidnapping just because a couple of respectable doctors said so. And why would they lie?



Bill Pallot, the expert forger who swindled the highest authorities in the French State in matter of art, is behind the international scandal of fake 18th-century furniture (bought with the taxpayers' money). It's a saga as incredible as it is revealing of the flaws in the market and its players.

crusader wrote:This forum believes there was no kidnapper, are you of the mind that Madeleine could have been kidnapped by a stranger Anne?

I'm not at all of the mind and agreed with the Diario de Noticias title on May 5th "A very badly told story",  but it's just an opinion.