Bernt Stellander interview

Farcical wrote:

crusader wrote:Bern't,
Calling me rude and naive is an insult, there is no more I wish to say to you.

I didn't personally see anything remotely rude from yourself. Merely having an opinion is not rude.

Me neither. Crusader just made a statement. It may or may not be (seen as) a naive comment but it wasn't rude.

Crusader, I think Bernt is very sensitive and wary of forum/online discussions as they are often infiltrated with people who try to derail things - sometimes in very underhand fashion. There are very powerful forces still trying to keep the mainstream abduction narrative alive.
I am not suggesting that is you, of course   just that Bernt is probably a bit cheesed off with having to go over certain things that he maybe thinks should be clear.
I know his English if fantastic but it is not his first language so there is always a possiblilty of some nuance in conversation being misunderstood or lost as well.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the next JE podcast too...

crusader wrote:I certainly hope it does have the power to obtain justice for Madeleine, well that's not my thinking, I just want to know what happened to her, for that we will have to wait and see won't we.
I stand ready to apologise to Bernt if I've got him wrong.

The potential power of that footage is there to see & to understand right now. It’s not that complicated. You just need to consider how any such footage might be unsettling for certain people.

Yep, I think there are one or two foxes in the chicken coop.

crusader wrote:What is rude is posting a full stop when asked a question by Jill, not once but twice.

You are very observant if I may say so, Crusader. I didn't see the fullstops and wondered it Bernt was ok!

Jill Havern wrote:Yep, I think there are one or two foxes in the chicken coop.

There always has been.

AnneCGuedes wrote:Bernt : "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."


Why ? 

Because they had lots of time to do something before other than some crazy run around with a child at 10pm on the 3rd May.

The people who believe that Madeleine died earlier and still insist on Smithman have to believe that it was planned staging to make it look like an abduction.

Now...

Imagine if the Smiths didn't see anyone because they didn't go out to dinner that night... what a waste of effort for such a massive risk.

Imagine if it wasn't the Smiths and was someone Gerry knew.

It is intellectually dishonest to try and shoehorn Smithman into an earlier death.

It makes zero sense.

Bluebagthepirate wrote:

AnneCGuedes wrote:Bernt : "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."


Why ? 

Because they had lots of time to do something before other than some crazy run around with a child at 10pm on the 3rd May.

What "crazy run around" if you please ?

AnneCGuedes wrote:

Bluebagthepirate wrote:

AnneCGuedes wrote:Bernt : "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."


Why ? 

Because they had lots of time to do something before other than some crazy run around with a child at 10pm on the 3rd May.

What "crazy run around" if you please ?

Really?

The one proposed by people who think Smithman was Gerry as indicated by the part of my post you left out and in my posts just before that.

Sorry, but I never "proposed" a "crazy run around" concerning Smithman. He's been described as zigzagging as someone who tries to avoid facing someone.

AnneCGuedes wrote:Sorry, but I never "proposed" a "crazy run around" concerning Smithman. He's been described as zigzagging as someone who tries to avoid facing someone.

No you didn't, but that's what it was.

Anne. 
You said you read the book. So why are you asking....

My head is spinning by this thread so far, because of the talking in riddles. I am confused and becoming mentally challenged.
Please can we all stop talking in riddles
It is my understanding that the lack of action by the Portuguese is due to political blockage by the British. There may be legal implications should any of the Portuguese proceed. And legal implications for Bernt should be release the footage at this stage.
Somehow the Portuguese need the political will to get the MM case moving again and say to the British "This is our investigation, not yours, so back off and stop interfering and let us do our can job"
As far as I am concerned Smithman has been scrutinised well by Peter mac and the existance of A man seen by the smiths has no baring on this case if it is looked at with fresh eyes and taken in a new direction.
How the Portuguese side can possibly make any progress, I do not know.
Arguing gets us nowhere. Scrutinizing facts does, if we can just park our preconceived ideas to one side for the moment.

AnneCGuedes wrote:I asked why to "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".
To my knowledge Pat hasn't even contemplated the possibility of "it" happening earlier. 

Well she's got that wrong.

What do you think happened earlier that evening that had Kate trying to explain the crying incident two days before?

And the sleeping in the spare bed?

And "the last photo" ?

Anne. 
Then you didn't understand my words. 
Pat accepts in her "review" video  that if it happened earlier smithman would not be Gerry. She is not open to an earlier death. Do you see the difference..... 
Isabelle said to me personally that obvious deduction too.

Watch from 22:08 in Pat's review video.

Bluebagthepirate wrote:

AnneCGuedes wrote:I asked why to "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".
To my knowledge Pat hasn't even contemplated the possibility of "it" happening earlier. 

Well she's got that wrong.

What do you think happened earlier that evening that had Kate trying to explain the crying incident two days before?

And the sleeping in the spare bed?

And "the last photo" ?

I have another opinion, but I wouldn't say that Pat "got that wrong". I told Pat my opinion about what happened to M's body and she said "oh no, they're catholic, etc..." She had brought a metal detector from the States in case the body was in a nailed kind of coffin. She didn't find anything, which doesn't prove there was nothing to find.

BerntS wrote:Anne. 
Then you didn't understand my words. 
Pat accepts in her "review" video  that if it happened earlier smithman would not be Gerry. She is not open to an earlier death. Do you see the difference..... 
Isabelle said to me personally that obvious deduction too.

Watch from 22:08 in her review video.

It's very different of course, I'll watch.

PB : ...then he (Bernt) went put the focus back on Smithman which was interesting. Smithman whom he says is not Jerry for sure and is totally a waste of time to even think about, because Smithman was on the 3rd and she died on the 2nd and she was already hidden in the cemetery in the early morning of the 3rd so therefore how could Smithman have anything to do with it ? So  Jane made up an excuse but Smithman is meaningless ok, I will tell you in a minute why Smithman is still the key...

I only understand that if it happened on the 2nd and if the body was in the cemetery on the 3rd, then the child carrier couldn't carry M when he met the S family.

Anne. 
Anything taking focus off Tannerman would be ignored, for obvious reasons. Not because G was there!
We can deduce that the alarm had to have gone off AFTER Maddie was hidden. Cadaver scent in the parents bedroom and in the bush outside the patio destroys Pat's theory. What makes it worse is that the alarm went off before 10pm, likely almost half hour earlier. On top of those problems, you have the Smith family on the spot very likely at least 30 minutes later than they claim.
Gerry was instructing the nannies where to look, under cars and in bins. He himself pretended to search around the pool area, by the playground inside the resort, next to the tapas. Mrs Fenn offered to call the police. 
But most importantly, any serious profiler would conclude there was zero chance the main director of the play would leave center stage at the peak of the performance, especially when his life depended on it.

The point is, tieing all observations together, leaves no room for G to be away from the immediate area of apt 5a after the actual alarm. Even an alarm at 10pm excludes that possibility, as the Smith's were not there yet.

Pat does an illogical assumption in her theory. She says Kate went to check while G was hiding M and rushing back to tapas. Why would Kate go and check if G was in the apt (according to her knowledge) as he hadn't returned from his check?!?! I wouldn't be surprised if the honorary profiler didn't even think of that. 

How can a profiler trust those first Smith  statements, but not the three independent witnesses confirming an earlier alarm.....

Her worst mispresentation is the nanny. The nanny did NOT lie intentionally for the McCanns in her May 6th and 10th statement. Another indication that she never really read my book. Cat knew Maddie was gone and to save her own ass, she told the police Maddie was there für the Mini sailing, yet leaking one of the six signed in was missing. Cat knew if the world found out she couldn't count to six, she would never ever work with children again!!! Cat only lied for the McCanns AFTER having been prepped in their home, 11 months later. How a profiler can be that sloppy and making things up, is beyond me. If she'd read the book she wouldn't spew such misinformation. Maybe she forgot to read the PJ files as well.

The funny part is how she doesn't even know what the sudden impulse was. She thinks it's OK for G to have it on the 3rd, but not if she fell the night before, that's hilarious. I'm pretty clear in my book why that title was chosen, that when G discovers her condition, he knew instantly that there was no way they would call an ambulance, and her destiny was sealed. Had nothing to do with the time they had to prepare anything. He still had to get the body packed and out of the apt to avoid scent of death after his instant impulse and decision. Like Peter taught us, the blood left to be properly cleaned in daylight was producing cadaverine while they focused on other tasks.

Reviewing a book you haven't read, is pathetic. Mispresenting things from the PJ files and in the book she didn't read, is next level.

She says smithman walked to the beach. Where does she get that from. He was three parallel streets above the rocks, and according to Smith's daughter she saw him from her left side coming up the steps, which indicates he was NOT walking down towards Dolphin and the beach, as then they would cross path and she would notice him going down the steps they all came from. She's making things up, which is a sign of needing to refresh the facts and stop making up a movie in her head that's stuck on replay. We all need to refresh from time to time, and focus on first statements, not the questionable things added later.