Re: SECOND Bernt Stellander Interview

by **crusader** 02.11.24 16:47

I don't believe there was any SA at all, I think Madeleine was a much loved and longed for Daughter.

by **CaKeLoveR** 02.11.24 16:57

Bernt, I've followed your reasoning (I think) about the sedation theory; Madeleine may have been given a sedative, or many, over several months, to facilitate SA. Children who have been drugged don't remember any assault, or who carried it out, so there are no clues in their behaviour when they are with their abusers. She always looked happy to me, on holiday photos and home videos. So no, the McCann's wouldn't have been worried about drugs being found.

by **crusader** 02.11.24 16:57

On the whole, people only refer to the Gaspar statement made by Katherine.
In Arol Gaspar's statement, he also saw what Payne did and thought it to be in bad taste, he then thought no more about it and as far as he knew, it wasn't repeated.
At the time, he did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine.

by Justice for Maddie 02.11.24 16:57

crusader wrote:I don't believe there was any SA at all, I think Madeleine was a much loved and longed for Daughter.

There is a rumor that Gerry and Kate were swingers/oversexed and that Kate was abused in her childhood (victim perpetrator transition). I wouldn't be surprised if SA was going on in the McCann family, but of course we need a real proof.

by **crusader** 02.11.24 17:04

Again unsubstantiated rumour.

by **CaKeLoveR** 02.11.24 17:05

crusader wrote:I don't believe there was any SA at all, I think Madeleine was a much loved and longed for Daughter.

I find it hard to believe, despite my post which followed yours.

by Clishmaclaver 02.11.24 17:11

Justice for Maddie wrote:
crusader wrote:I don't believe there was any SA at all, I think Madeleine was a much loved and longed for Daughter.

There is a rumor that Gerry and Kate were swingers/oversexed and that Kate was abused in her childhood (Victim perpetrator repentance). So I wouldn't be surprised if SA was going on in the McCann family, but of course we need a real proof.

I wouldn't be surprised about the rumours re swinging, and I've read comments about K having been abused as a child. However, I think it is irresponsible to implicate the Healys here, and I must say I've always felt a bit sorry for them in all of this mess. IIRC Kate was worried about what her parents might think at the time she was made arguida. I get the impression that she was well brought up by respectable, hard-working parents, who were obviously interested in her education and had aspirations for her to do well.

by Justice for Maddie 02.11.24 17:25

CaKeLoveR wrote:
crusader wrote:I don't believe there was any SA at all, I think Madeleine was a much loved and longed for Daughter.
I find it hard to believe, despite my post which followed yours.

I think Maddie looked a little bit sad and scared sometimes (airport video), maybe because the twins got the full attention and Gerry was so dominant.

by **AnneCGuedes** 02.11.24 17:36

BerntS wrote:Anne.
When the Gaspars heard she was "missing", their conscience brought them to Leicestershire Police.
I applaude them.
Completely normal and expected behavior. It's easier to act from a distance, rather than confronting an extremely dominant Gerry, on a holiday.
They eventually did what they felt they had to do. Better late than never.

You applaude them, I don't.
Better late than never when they could immediately put an end to a sudden fear ? Instead of taking care of not leaving D watching their kid having a bath ?
Where would have gone common decency ?
But I'm pretty sure that two doctors wouldn't have such a conversation in front of a colleague if they knew she'd take it literally.

by pinkgladioli 02.11.24 17:51

Anne have you ever been in a situation where you think your ears have deceived you

by **AnneCGuedes** 02.11.24 18:08

Of course, in that case I ask the locutor to repeat in order to make sure.

by pinkgladioli 02.11.24 18:24

AnneCGuedes wrote:Of course, in that case I ask the locutor to repeat in order to make sure.

Which is good that you wouldn’t feel intimidated in doing so

Sadly other people may not have the same guts as you

by **CaKeLoveR** 02.11.24 18:53

It depends how many people hear (or mishear) and how many times something is repeated. You can end up with 'Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance'.

by **Nina** 02.11.24 19:16

crusader wrote:I don't believe there was any SA at all, I think Madeleine was a much loved and longed for Daughter.

It is my opinion that any parent who takes photographs of their child in provocatively posed photographs is either very dim or purposefully sexualising a child.
Sorry if anyone here does this with their children or grandchildren but that is my opinion. It is our job to protect children and doing the above isn't protecting them.

by **Jill Havern** 02.11.24 19:32

Or think it's ok for David Payne and Jon Corner to talk about their 3 year-old in that manner.

by **CaKeLoveR** 02.11.24 20:06

I'm of the opinion that the McCann's, their families, and their friends and acquaintances held some peculiar views of children. Fill's terrible professional reputation, her ex husband's vile hobby, Corner's portfolio of Madeleine photos, the bathing of children not their own, and leaving them unattended in apartments in foreign countries, even if they are ill - and these are only what we know about.

by **crusader** 02.11.24 20:17

I must admit, there is no excuse for those photographs, it's mind-boggling that they were took in the first place and even more mind- boggling they were released.
the McCann's obviously didn't see anything wrong with them.
They would probably think it was our dirty minds.
Mind you, Kate saw nothing wrong with writing about Madeleine's private parts in her book.

by pinkgladioli 02.11.24 20:32

CaKeLoveR wrote:I'm of the opinion that the McCann's, their families, and their friends and acquaintances held some peculiar views of children. Fill's terrible professional reputation, her ex husband's vile hobby, Corner's portfolio of Madeleine photos, the bathing of children not their own, and leaving them unattended in apartments in foreign countries, even if they are ill - and these are only what we know about.

I watched the Leveson enquiry the other day, GM made out that early on the 4th May, on his own initiative Corner released photographs of Madeleine to the media!

by Justice for Maddie 02.11.24 20:37

pinkgladioli wrote:
CaKeLoveR wrote:I'm of the opinion that the McCann's, their families, and their friends and acquaintances held some peculiar views of children. Fill's terrible professional reputation, her ex husband's vile hobby, Corner's portfolio of Madeleine photos, the bathing of children not their own, and leaving them unattended in apartments in foreign countries, even if they are ill - and these are only what we know about.
I watched the Leveson enquiry the other day, GM made out that early on the 4th May, on his own initiative Corner released photographs of Madeleine to the media!

Really? WOW

by Guest 02.11.24 21:34

Anne.
I think you struggle with the term later rather than never.

And you thinking those words would never come up around that table is fine, except it did, so the Gaspars took a big step and went to the police.
In my world that weighs a little heavier than what you think happened around some table in 2005.

Cruise.
Not abnormal that men perceive less than women around a table, mostly because of alcohol consumption. They both heard the same, except his wife caught is was about Maddie. Would it matter if the comments were about a different child in the group? Put your thinking hat on.

by Justice for Maddie 02.11.24 21:46

Justice for Maddie wrote:
pinkgladioli wrote:
CaKeLoveR wrote:I'm of the opinion that the McCann's, their families, and their friends and acquaintances held some peculiar views of children. Fill's terrible professional reputation, her ex husband's vile hobby, Corner's portfolio of Madeleine photos, the bathing of children not their own, and leaving them unattended in apartments in foreign countries, even if they are ill - and these are only what we know about.
I watched the Leveson enquiry the other day, GM made out that early on the 4th May, on his own initiative Corner released photographs of Madeleine to the media!

Really? WOW

Nobody should tell me that these Lolita pictures in Corner's video from 2010 are normal pictures of a 3 years old little girl. Sorry. Why did he release them?

by GreenTara 02.11.24 21:53

BerntS wrote:Anne.
When the Gaspars heard she was "missing", their conscience brought them to Leicestershire Police.
I applaude them.
Completely normal and expected behavior. It's easier to act from a distance, rather than confronting an extremely dominant Gerry, on a holiday.
They eventually did what they felt they had to do. Better late than never.

I totally agree! Well said!
One would have to know how challenging & complex it is to question, call out or report what happened with Gerry & David Payne to begin to understand why the Gaspars did not report it straight away. I get it. The rest of the group who also heard it, went quiet for a few seconds and proceeded to pretend it hadn’t happened. So kudos to the Gaspars.

by GreenTara 02.11.24 21:58

pinkgladioli wrote:Anne have you ever been in a situation where you think your ears have deceived you

Exactly! And in situations such as this you are under a lot of pressure to believe your ears have deceived you, especially when everyone around you is pretending it didn’t happen. There’s a reason these things are not reported and there’s a reason women don’t report when they are raped. Shame on people who try to shame those that don’t speak out.

by **CaKeLoveR** 02.11.24 22:55

We see only two make-up photos; it seems unlikely, imo, that somebody would apply the make-up and pose Madeleine to take just two. There are bound to be more, possibly too distasteful even for Corner to release.

by **AnneCGuedes** 03.11.24 0:10

pinkgladioli wrote:
AnneCGuedes wrote:Of course, in that case I ask the locutor to repeat in order to make sure.
Which is good that you wouldn’t feel intimidated in doing so

Sadly other people may not have the same guts as you

If two people are speaking out loud in front of you, whereas you are not the direct speaker, they know that you can hear (you are not snooping, they could very well be speaking in a low voice). Therefore, if you have any doubt or fear about what you have heard, you are entitled to question the speakers about what they are saying. I don't see what's so intimidating about that, especially as all these people are doctors and colleagues.

by **AnneCGuedes** 03.11.24 0:31

pinkgladioli wrote:I watched the Leveson enquiry the other day, GM made out that early on the 4th May, on his own initiative Corner released photographs of Madeleine to the media!

He set up a FTP server so that family members and supporters could access Madeleine's photos, videos, leaflets, etc. and gave the password to the editorial staff, an initiative which, in time and according to "Madeleine", would prove to be compatible with the recommendations of the US NCMEC, but not with those of the PJ. It was probably Jon Cwho leaked the family photo to the media, as it appeared in the Times, probably in an attempt to circumvent any notion of a negligent family.

by **PeterMac** 03.11.24 8:52

We're on page 3 of this thread and the Interview hasn't yet been released ! ! !
That tells us a lot about the interest there is still in this case, and why we shall never let it fade away as the McCanns and Tapas all hoped it would.

From what little Bernt told me, but also reading between the lines, it is clear that he believes the interview exposes something new and very challenging.

I think we can expect a "publicity" and warm up video soon, which wlil intrigue some and annoy others, as last time.

He did let slip that the video will be shown first to the PJ, which is why I think there must be something substantial in it.
Perhaps this week ? ? ?

by GreenTara 03.11.24 9:16

AnneCGuedes wrote:
pinkgladioli wrote:
AnneCGuedes wrote:Of course, in that case I ask the locutor to repeat in order to make sure.
Which is good that you wouldn’t feel intimidated in doing so

Sadly other people may not have the same guts as you

If two people are speaking out loud in front of you, whereas you are not the direct speaker, they know that you can hear (you are not snooping, they could very well be speaking in a low voice). Therefore, if you have any doubt or fear about what you have heard, you are entitled to question the speakers about what they are saying. I don't see what's so intimidating about that, especially as all these people are doctors and colleagues.

It’s naive to think it’s that simple in situations like this. Perpetrators know it’s not that simple and that’s what gives them a confidence that doesn’t make sense, unless you know how these things work. It’s taken decades of work by specialists in sexual violence to break down some of the myths you are supporting here. Your viewpoint, therefore scares me.

by Clishmaclaver 03.11.24 9:56

AnneCGuedes wrote:
pinkgladioli wrote:
AnneCGuedes wrote:Of course, in that case I ask the locutor to repeat in order to make sure.
Which is good that you wouldn’t feel intimidated in doing so

Sadly other people may not have the same guts as you

If two people are speaking out loud in front of you, whereas you are not the direct speaker, they know that you can hear (you are not snooping, they could very well be speaking in a low voice). Therefore, if you have any doubt or fear about what you have heard, you are entitled to question the speakers about what they are saying. I don't see what's so intimidating about that, especially as all these people are doctors and colleagues.

Bear in mind that they had settled into a week's holiday, with the only couple they knew being the McCs. K.G. was obviously taken aback by what she witnessed and trying to absorb it. Tackling the issue would have been difficult and would perhaps have caused a rift which could have ruined the holiday for everyone. (How to win friends and influence people and all that - LOL!).

I could imagine K.G. and even her husband possibly being a bit more serious/conservative than their loud, rude, crude holiday companions. Maybe if it had happened on the last night, she could have been bold about speaking out! LOL!

At least the couple plucked up courage and did the right thing by going to the police and making statements in May, 2007. That says a lot for them, as it couldn't have been easy, and we don't know what the aftermath was for them.

by GreenTara 03.11.24 10:10

I would like to say here, that it is the trouble Bernt has gone to, to understand and address the subtleties of coercive control and how individuals might behave in extreme situations that in part, is what makes his book different. Subtleties that are challenging to describe but easy to ridicule. Without a deep understanding of how these scenarios can play out, it’s too easy to criticise the Gaspars or Mrs Fenn. It’s also his detailed delve into these subtleties & human behaviour why it’s hard for someone who has not read his book to blag and pretend they have read it. Only the people who have read it can spot the blaggers a mile off. Let’s say he has done a better job of profiling than some. For example he profiled the characters and what they said in detail to arrive at his theories. Rather than “oh he’s got a body, and he’s going towards the beach, where could he hide it, oh I know, under a boat”

Latest topics