Re: Bernt Stellander interview

by **CaKeLoveR** 27.10.24 12:05

Not a sensitive thing to do, was it? But that's the McCann's for you.

by **CaKeLoveR** 27.10.24 13:45

by **CaKeLoveR** 27.10.24 13:46

Not sure if this is the best thread for this. Gerry McCann looks as though he's thinking 'I know what you are'. Or is that my imagination?

by pinkgladioli 27.10.24 14:44

CaKeLoveR wrote:Not sure if this is the best thread for this. Gerry McCann looks as though he's thinking 'I know what you are'. Or is that my imagination?

I watched this clip a few weeks ago, I have to say I had the same thought as you!

by **CaKeLoveR** 27.10.24 15:04

Spooky! He is looking smug, as HidDeHO4 said, but he has a knowing look as well - could be thinking 'You'll be under the spotlight one day - don't get clever with me, pal'.

by **crusader** 27.10.24 15:21

Thanks to Ladyinred post #1002 referring to L Forra, we have proof that he did take the photo of the pyjamas at a press conference given by the PJ in Portimao Arena.
(Scroll down to post #454 on that thread)
As regard to DNA on the back of the sofa, there is DNA from 3 different people, 2 of them men and non of them relating to either Gerry or Madeleine.
Apart from anything else, why does it matter who took the photo's, the actual pyjamas in the photo's were produced at more than one press conference by the McCann's.

by Justice for Maddie 27.10.24 15:22

WOW, our German reporters dared to ask critical questions...

by **Ladyinred** 27.10.24 15:36

Notice G. scratching his chest when asked the question about their involvement 20 seconds in.

by **BerntS** 27.10.24 15:51

Crusader.
The mccs didn't know what the police would or wouldn't find on back of the sofa!
Perhaps they knew there could have been splatter on the material, and therefor needed a pro active explanation IN CASE.

I repeat, the pj on blue background is damp.

by **CaKeLoveR** 27.10.24 16:00

Where his heart should be.

by pinkgladioli 27.10.24 16:13

crusader wrote:Thanks to Ladyinred post #1002 referring to L Forra, we have proof that he did take the photo of the pyjamas at a press conference given by the PJ in Portimao Arena.
(Scroll down to post #454 on that thread)
As regard to DNA on the back of the sofa, there is DNA from 3 different people, 2 of them men and non of them relating to either Gerry or Madeleine.
Apart from anything else, why does it matter who took the photo's, the actual pyjamas in the photo's were produced at more than one press conference by the McCann's.

What made you change your mind re proof ? ive just read your post 466 on the same thread

by **Ladyinred** 27.10.24 16:15

Bernt, just wanted to say that's it's great that you're here, posting away amongst us, providing new perspectives and information. Hope you feel comfortable here

Thank you!

by **crusader** 27.10.24 16:17

At the time of the so called abduction, the McCann's had no reason to suppose the police wouldn't believe the story of Madeleine having been abducted.
It was only later when the dogs were brought in that detailed forensic tests were done after they signalled blood behind the sofa, not on the sofa, although we now know there was blood on the sofa.

by **crusader** 27.10.24 16:20

pinkgladioli wrote
What made you change your mind re proof ? ive just read your post 466 on the same thread

This thread or the Martin Robert's
thread?

by **crusader** 27.10.24 16:33

Found it.
Lack of evidence to the contrary I suppose, plus I never believed the pyjama top was damp.
It is a very bad photo, the pyjamas look dirty and old, yet in the video where the McCann's hold up the pyjamas, (and they are definitely the same pair), they are perfectly clean.
So I think the photo attributed to the McCann's is because it looks damp with a tea stain and is associated with Kate saying she washed it that morning.
The simple explanation is Louis Forra took it.

by **Nina** 27.10.24 16:46

crusader wrote:Found it.
Lack of evidence to the contrary I suppose, plus I never believed the pyjama top was damp.
It is a very bad photo, the pyjamas look dirty and old, yet in the video where the McCann's hold up the pyjamas, (and they are definitely the same pair), they are perfectly clean.
So I think the photo attributed to the McCann's is because it looks damp with a tea stain and is associated with Kate saying she washed it that morning.
The simple explanation is Louis Forra took it.

I don't want this post to read as mum bashing but I have felt that on some photographs and videos of Madeleine her clothes look ill fitting or washed out so maybe the pjs were just that dirty and old. Says she who is still wearing a nightgown that was bought thirty years ago.

by **crusader** 27.10.24 16:48

It was better quality then. big grin

by **BerntS** 27.10.24 16:54

Crusader.
Forra and a damp pj don't go together.
If you don't get it, ok.

Then show us which photo of the pj the mccs handed over to the police, please.
We agree to disagree.

by **crusader** 27.10.24 17:10

If Forra say's he took the photo, then the pyjamas wouldn't have been damp.
Those who believe that the McCann's took the photo, believe that the pyjama's were damp simply because Kate said she washed them that morning (which could or could not be true) simple case of putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5.
Why would you take a photo of damp pyjamas anyway?
I didn't know the McCann's had handed a photo of the pyjamas to the police, where can I read that please.

by **CaKeLoveR** 27.10.24 17:37

crusader wrote:If Forra say's he took the photo, then the pyjamas wouldn't have been damp.
Those who believe that the McCann's took the photo, believe that the pyjama's were damp simply because Kate said she washed them that morning (which could or could not be true) simple case of putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5.
Why would you take a photo of damp pyjamas anyway?
I didn't know the McCann's had handed a photo of the pyjamas to the police, where can I read that please.

Taking a photo of unoccupied pyjamas is weird any way, isn't it? A happy toddler in her jimjams, going to bed with her blankey or cuddly toy, fair enough. The McCann's did so many daft things though.

by **Nina** 27.10.24 17:57

CaKeLoveR wrote:
crusader wrote:If Forra say's he took the photo, then the pyjamas wouldn't have been damp.
Those who believe that the McCann's took the photo, believe that the pyjama's were damp simply because Kate said she washed them that morning (which could or could not be true) simple case of putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5.
Why would you take a photo of damp pyjamas anyway?
I didn't know the McCann's had handed a photo of the pyjamas to the police, where can I read that please.
Taking a photo of unoccupied pyjamas is weird any way, isn't it? A happy toddler in her jimjams, going to bed with her blankey or cuddly toy, fair enough. The McCann's did so many daft things though.

Maybe because it was a link with abduction from bed whilst wearing pjs? We must always remember we are talking of 2007 when social media and the internet was really in it's infancy when no one could have predicted the level the public, and not just of the UK, would invest their time in the minutiae of the case. So full of himself Gerry and hot lips Kate just gave their performances.

by **Silentscope** 27.10.24 18:55

No Man can keep a Secret - if his Lips are Silent, he chatters with his Fingertips.
Jed Bedingfield
The Interpretation of Murder.

See 'Gerrys Bedtime reading' thread.

by **CaKeLoveR** 27.10.24 19:16

Nina wrote:
CaKeLoveR wrote:
crusader wrote:If Forra say's he took the photo, then the pyjamas wouldn't have been damp.
Those who believe that the McCann's took the photo, believe that the pyjama's were damp simply because Kate said she washed them that morning (which could or could not be true) simple case of putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5.
Why would you take a photo of damp pyjamas anyway?
I didn't know the McCann's had handed a photo of the pyjamas to the police, where can I read that please.
Taking a photo of unoccupied pyjamas is weird any way, isn't it? A happy toddler in her jimjams, going to bed with her blankey or cuddly toy, fair enough. The McCann's did so many daft things though.
Maybe because it was a link with abduction from bed whilst wearing pjs? We must always remember we are talking of 2007 when social media and the internet was really in it's infancy when no one could have predicted the level the public, and not just of the UK, would invest their time in the minutiae of the case. So full of himself Gerry and hot lips Kate just gave thei

Nina, if you have a look at post #330 on Dr. Martin Roberts - A Nightwear Job thread, you will see my mention of being abducted and pyjamas. Are we thinking along similar lines?

by **Nina** 27.10.24 19:52

CaKeLoveR wrote:
Nina wrote:
CaKeLoveR wrote:
crusader wrote:If Forra say's he took the photo, then the pyjamas wouldn't have been damp.
Those who believe that the McCann's took the photo, believe that the pyjama's were damp simply because Kate said she washed them that morning (which could or could not be true) simple case of putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5.
Why would you take a photo of damp pyjamas anyway?
I didn't know the McCann's had handed a photo of the pyjamas to the police, where can I read that please.
Taking a photo of unoccupied pyjamas is weird any way, isn't it? A happy toddler in her jimjams, going to bed with her blankey or cuddly toy, fair enough. The McCann's did so many daft things though.
Maybe because it was a link with abduction from bed whilst wearing pjs? We must always remember we are talking of 2007 when social media and the internet was really in it's infancy when no one could have predicted the level the public, and not just of the UK, would invest their time in the minutiae of the case. So full of himself Gerry and hot lips Kate just gave thei
Nina, if you have a look at post #330 on Dr. Martin Roberts - A Nightwear Job thread, you will see my mention of being abducted and pyjamas. Are we thinking along similar lines?

Abducted from bed they would have to say that Madeleine was wearing nightclothes unless they said the children just wore their underclothes. That particular evening Kate said that Madeleine had said she was very tired and that she had carried her back to 5A. It could have been that she just put Madeleine straight to bed even without a bath and the share of a toothbrush but seemingly Madeleine suddenly was active, had a bath, some snacks and a drink and then story time for the three children whilst Madeleine cuddled up and played with Kate's engagement ring.
It is all a mystery these sudden changes of clothes and mood.

by **AnneCGuedes** 28.10.24 0:02

crusader wrote:At the time of the so called abduction, the McCann's had no reason to suppose the police wouldn't believe the story of Madeleine having been abducted.
It was only later when the dogs were brought in that detailed forensic tests were done after they signalled blood behind the sofa, not on the sofa, although we now know there was blood on the sofa.

The PJ had some reason not to believe : no sign of breaking-in, no strange DNA, dogs did follow G5 corridor, not the car-park and Agostinho da Silva (Tannerman's route), etc.
Eddie first signalled in the parents' bedroom (= stronger scent), and we know it was death because Keela didn't signalled there.

by **AnneCGuedes** 28.10.24 0:05

Ladyinred wrote:Notice G. scratching his chest when asked the question about their involvement 20 seconds in.

This suggests that of the two it is K who is the mastermind. I observed this at the Lisbon court.

by **CaKeLoveR** 28.10.24 7:27

AnneCGuedes wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Notice G. scratching his chest when asked the question about their involvement 20 seconds in.

This suggests that of the two it is K who is the mastermind. I observed this at the Lisbon court.g

I thought the same when Gerry McCann ripped off his microphone and stood up to leave, during an interview. I think the controlling person, who would be giving signals with shoulder squeezes etc, would not have broken contact.

by pinkgladioli 28.10.24 7:50

Re the footage of GM taking off his microphone, IMO I thought KM looked like she was in a terrified trance, he looked like he could be showing his volatile true colours, I got the impression there’s a huge possibility she could be suffering the wrath of the situation behind closed doors later on