Bernt Stellander interview

BerntS wrote: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.

AnneCGuedes wrote:

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.

Justice for Maddie wrote:Let's say Maddie was kidnapped. Who died in the apartment 5A? Maddie's clone/twin?

AnneCGuedes wrote:

deepeepee wrote:
If you are suggesting that this massive cover up charade (which still has no end in sight) was launched immediately literally before anyone had even gone to bed that night and no one knew anything just because someone said there was a kidnapping with zero evidence then I really don't know what to say.

It wasn't "someone said", but the victims themselves said.

It's not the only situation of performative utterance in this story. A performative utterance achieves what it states, using it brings about a reality.  Another example is the window/shutters found open. Who opened them, who closed them, etc. In fact imo they were never opened, just said to have been opened.

AnneCGuedes wrote:

deepeepee wrote:
There is only one victim here as far as I understand and she can't utter anything.
But regardless, maybe you could address my point about the huge cover up starting even before anyone knew what was going on or had uttered anything (Sorry, except K who knew immediately - "they've taken her"/sarc/)

I use the word "victim" in its post-modern meaning.
Rumour started early in the morning "window open, shutters open, curtains open, door open and Madeleine gone". The melodramatic description has spread like wildfire

pinkgladioli wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:...Luz is a popular place for all kinds of Brits.

For example, during that fateful week, a nephew of a prominent Labour politician (also a member of a notable family) was on holiday there with his children.  Indeed, he claimed he had a photograph of his children , with M. in the background, taken on 3rd May.

I am not suggesting that this individual was involved in the disappearance.

What were M15/I6 doing locally, drugs?

Territorist Organisation Ireland

BerntS wrote: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.