Re: Bernt Stellander interview

by **Jill Havern** Today at 10:56

CaKeLoveR wrote:Dan Wootton, fearless independent journalist, hasn't acknowledged receipt of his copy which was sent to him by Jill.

I only sent him a link to Bernt's book via twitter.

Same with Peter Bleksley.

Maybe they didn't even see my tweet as these people usually tweet but don't stick around to read any comments.

by GreenTara Today at 11:10

CaKeLoveR wrote:I agree GreenTara, but I keep coming back to what if nobody involved - The McCann gang, the authorities and the press - makes a move? T.M. won't, for obvious reasons, same with the authorities, and the press are under orders not to touch the case, possibly forever. There has been no mention of the Brick, by any of the afore mentioned; Dan Wootton, fearless independent journalist, hasn't acknowledged receipt of his copy which was sent to him by Jill. Private Eye is ignoring it, which surprises me. The reach of the cover up is staggering.

Good point CaKeLoveR. It’s no guarantee for sure but it’s the closest thing we have to anything that might crack the case. Therefore must be played out. It would of course have a better chance of causing disruption if people who wanted to crack the case got behind it regardless of their personal views, rather than destroying its potential energy. Potential energy which has clearly taken time & genius to craft.

by **Nina** Today at 11:22

GreenTara wrote:
CaKeLoveR wrote:I agree GreenTara, but I keep coming back to what if nobody involved - The McCann gang, the authorities and the press - makes a move? T.M. won't, for obvious reasons, same with the authorities, and the press are under orders not to touch the case, possibly forever. There has been no mention of the Brick, by any of the afore mentioned; Dan Wootton, fearless independent journalist, hasn't acknowledged receipt of his copy which was sent to him by Jill. Private Eye is ignoring it, which surprises me. The reach of the cover up is staggering.
Good point CaKeLoveR. It’s no guarantee for sure but it’s the closest thing we have to anything that might crack the case. Therefore must be played out. It would of course have a better chance of causing disruption if people who wanted to crack the case got behind it regardless of their personal views, rather than destroying its potential energy. Potential energy which has clearly taken time & genius to craft.

I agree 100% GreenTea and am absolutely gobsmacked, if you will pardon me, at the reaction of some. Maybe they don't want the case to be cracked.

by **BerntS** Today at 11:29

GreenTara and Nina.
The "community establishment" prefers the mystery living on, as then their theories can still gasp for air.

They might never accept being wrong.
Never say never, but we've seen their true colors already, what length they go to discredit "intruders"...

by GreenTara Today at 11:45

Nina wrote:
GreenTara wrote:
CaKeLoveR wrote:I agree GreenTara, but I keep coming back to what if nobody involved - The McCann gang, the authorities and the press - makes a move? T.M. won't, for obvious reasons, same with the authorities, and the press are under orders not to touch the case, possibly forever. There has been no mention of the Brick, by any of the afore mentioned; Dan Wootton, fearless independent journalist, hasn't acknowledged receipt of his copy which was sent to him by Jill. Private Eye is ignoring it, which surprises me. The reach of the cover up is staggering.
Good point CaKeLoveR. It’s no guarantee for sure but it’s the closest thing we have to anything that might crack the case. Therefore must be played out. It would of course have a better chance of causing disruption if people who wanted to crack the case got behind it regardless of their personal views, rather than destroying its potential energy. Potential energy which has clearly taken time & genius to craft.
I agree 100% GreenTea and am absolutely gobsmacked, if you will pardon me, at the reaction of some. Maybe they don't want the case to be cracked.

I’m with you Nina. I think they may care about Maddie & on some level want the case solved. Possibly only to satisfy their curiosity as they certainly seem to have lost sight of justice for the little girl. They seem happy with people theorising & debating for evermore, they don’t seem to like that someone has turned up working to actually crack the case open. They don’t even seem able to appreciate that his style has taken the no-abduction narrative out to a much wider audience. That alone deserves respect - surely?

by **Ladyinred** Today at 12:07

Who are "they"?

by **Nina** Today at 12:08

BerntS wrote:GreenTara and Nina.
The "community establishment" prefers the mystery living on, as then their theories can still gasp for air.

They might never accept being wrong.
Never say never, but we've seen their true colors already, what length they go to discredit "intruders"...

This is why I am so surprised. The ''community establishment'' as you call it has for many years been a very trusted source for research and of sharing information so very trusted by armies of followers since the very early days of the case.

by **Jill Havern** Today at 13:23

1 hour ago

From a zoom call I just had with Bernt Stellander! No comment, officer

by Justice for Maddie Today at 13:38

by Honesty Today at 13:40

Jill Havern wrote:" frameborder="0">

1 hour ago

From a zoom call I just had with Bernt Stellander! No comment, officer

Is this wise?

by **BerntS** Today at 13:44

Nina.
The more invested - the bigger the fall.
Pride and ego are strong forces.

Being wrong is no big deal for the heart that seek the truth.

by pinkgladioli Today at 13:52

Your last sentence sums it up so well!

by **Jill Havern** Today at 13:52

Honesty wrote:
Jill Havern wrote:" frameborder="0">

1 hour ago

From a zoom call I just had with Bernt Stellander! No comment, officer
Is this wise?

Is what wise?

by **Ladyinred** Today at 13:57

pinkgladioli wrote:Your last sentence sums it up so well!

Poetic

by Honesty Today at 14:04

Jill Havern wrote:
Honesty wrote:
Jill Havern wrote:" frameborder="0">

1 hour ago

From a zoom call I just had with Bernt Stellander! No comment, officer
Is this wise?
Is what wise?

"It's a short list of what I got caught for" says Bernt and follows up with "no comment". M seems a nice young lady and it's all very good humoured - but is it a good look for Bernt?

by **BerntS** Today at 15:46

Honesty.
You don't think HONESTY is good?

I hope your ears caught "clean sheet" to guide you into understanding a short clip.
I suggest again you read the book AND watch the full interview before you bring your negative attitude....
False caring, is no caring.

It was a general question, without a time frame, in life......

And Yes, I've broken the law. I drive to fast some times, and haven't got caught, with one exception. I was caught speeding once, when I was 22. A list of one is a short list.

by **AnneCGuedes** Today at 16:10

Let's look at the concept of honesty. It is possible to be transparent without necessarily telling the whole truth. We also need to distinguish between transparency and integrity, the latter being the consistency between promises made and promises actually kept.
Just food for thought.

by **crusader** Today at 16:13

Something has been made out of nothing, it was a light-hearted moment surely.

by **BerntS** Today at 16:14

Yeah, and a good tool for people who enjoy humour. But then you have the hawks looking for prey....twisting their ways and twisting in their ways, to try and out maneuver the dinner...

by **AnneCGuedes** Today at 16:18

Oh, but I forgot about promises. Of course they are only binding on those who believe them.

by **CaKeLoveR** Today at 16:30

I think they were just being jocular; Bernt wouldn't say anything to have the police hunting him.

by **Ladyinred** Today at 17:45

Bernt, will your interview with James be taking place before Moxie 's?

Is she an acquaintance of yours?

by **CaKeLoveR** Today at 17:52

The interview with James should be here soon glee

by **BerntS** Today at 18:31

LiR
Moxie first. JE2 first week of November.
I don't know Moxie. She texted me.
I turned down Attwood five times so far.
I just liked her set up and style in her first video. So I suggested we should talk on zoom to kick off her project.

by pinkgladioli Today at 18:35

Remember Remember the 1st week of November!

by **BerntS** Today at 18:46

Anne.
Arresting someone for promises without an expiration date...
Outdated eggs taste the same, if you just forget to look, and serve them when the time is right.

by **AnneCGuedes** Today at 18:55

BerntS wrote:Anne.
Arresting someone for promises without an expiration date...
Outdated eggs taste the same, if you just forget to look, and serve them when the time is right.

The promises of transparency proclaimed by Kate MC when they set up the Ltd Madeleine's Fund did not have a validity date... Will we be celebrating the twentieth anniversary of this heartfelt declaration?

by **Ladyinred** Today at 19:04

BerntS wrote:LiR
Moxie first. JE2 first week of November.
I don't know Moxie. She texted me.
I turned down Attwood five times so far.
I just liked her set up and style in her first video. So I suggested we should talk on zoom to kick off her project.

Thank you.

I presume the interviews will be very different, in that JE's is a follow-up with updates and new information; Moxie's more of discussing your work and book to a newer audience?

by **BerntS** Today at 19:13

Anne.
I would call the fund non transparent, or close to it. Money from the fund has been spent outside of visible frequency.

by Honesty Today at 21:41

BerntS wrote:Honesty.
You don't think HONESTY is good?

I hope your ears caught "clean sheet" to guide you into understanding a short clip.
I suggest again you read the book AND watch the full interview before you bring your negative attitude....
False caring, is no caring.

It was a general question, without a time frame, in life......

And Yes, I've broken the law. I drive to fast some times, and haven't got caught, with one exception. I was caught speeding once, when I was 22. A list of one is a short list.

Hello Bernt

I am sorry you were so upset by my post. It was well intentioned but you obviously saw it differently.

Latest topics