Does anyone disagree with the possibility of what I believe happened based on 17 Years of Research

Hey Mark Anderson, please stop trying to register here...you're wasting your time.

You told me you weren't on Facebook anymore, but that's a LIE. I can see when you're snooping on this forum and copying posts to post on Lizzy's FB group under the name Antonio Lopez Ribeiro.

You registered here not long ago under the name 'Stillgame' but I booted you out when I saw you snooping on my members.

And now you've registered again - well, I'm not activating your new account, or any subsequent accounts.
Go and play on FB and leave us alone here.

Blood and stomach pills what the hec is going on. 
There seems to be a lot of behind the scenes going on and with people I have known well  in an internet kind of way for many years and trusted so much.

He just emailed me to say the new account wasn't his....so I sent him the evidence and proved another LIE.

HiDeHo wrote:
I have always tried to highlight the translations by VOLUNTEERS from Maddie Case Files. in my videos and also the fact we do not allow ANY videos that can make money.  Cherry is great to check them before we post.  It has always been important to me.  I remember speaking to Ines 4 years later and she was STILL translating some.

Thats why this hounding to try to prove I make money was so distateful.  I guess it was to go to any lengths to 'prove' I was a 'hypocrite'..Accusing Bernt was in it to make money...which I don't think is so outrageous to think...Maybe it covers his expenses, maybe it doesn't but I would NEVER make any money from Maddie (and neither would others).

Also... please note...I DO NOT LIE and thankful that I have retained my credibility with the Maddie community over all these years...REGARDLESS of efforts to stop me.

Hopefully there has been a lesson learned.

AND an opportunity to THANK YOU ANNE for YOUR input...  I don't think people realise that without you and others we could not do what we do!!!

Judging by the number of ‘likes’, ingratitude seems to be the most widely shared thing in the world (to paraphrase Descartes, who said that about common sense).

crusader wrote:If we are wrong, we are not alone in thinking the McCann's hid Madeleine.
Police, specialist dogs, statement analysists and profilers are all wrong too.

I don't think they properly hid M, they got rid of her body as the abduction hoax required.

Jill

Should any of us ordinary members of this great club be concerned about having our identities revealed? Is it safe to share our theories with the McCannites publicly? Sorry if I am being dramatic but some threads have become competitions; others censorious. I don’t mind those aspects I have been reading this forum sonce the beginning. I don’t care about being “verdied” as in the past - not that I have shared much. But now I am starting to understand how you have to protect the members etc. I feel like we are walking on egg-shells while somebody (powerful group) is watching.

pinkgladioli wrote:To my knowledge Bernt in his book has not made any claim in his theory that Madeleine was killed by any of her parents !!!

Nobody (serious) has!

HiDeHo wrote:

Regarding the 'money' issue, it has always been an unwritten rule in the Maddie Community to not make money from those who translated the files VOLUNTARILY over the course of more than 4 YEARS. Without their effort we would not know what is contained in them.  Kate paid £100,000 to have their copy translated.  We were able to get it FREE from many people (from the Maddie Case Files who gave their time and expertise) so in my opinion...how DARE we make money from their hard work.

Never mind making money from poor Maddies demise.

Would that include your friend Anne Guedes, who wrote and published a 'Maddie' book?

I think another unwritten rule of the MM community is, do NOT do anything that has the tiniest chance of getting the PJ to reopen the case. If anyone dares to do this then we, the elders of this community must ensure that it is promptly stamped out. 
We wish to spend the next 17 years, explaining things like
1. No it’s not the podesta brothers, it’s 2 efits of the same man
2. No that’s not Gerry in the Red Shoe club, that’s a man called Will Bohlen
3. bla bla bla
We enjoy acting like masterminds on this topic, pointlessly arguing with the Harryrags of the world and just generally going round and round in circles. Don’t anyone dare to mess with that and spoil our fun.

We don’t need to know who called who or how long the call was because there is strong evidence that some backstage work has ensured that the reach of JE#2 was limited, that anyone who dares support the work to get the PJ to reopen the case will be bullied, accused of all sorts and shut down. 
So Jill, I suspect Anne Guedes book is perfectly acceptable to the elders (who write the unwritten rules) because it hasn’t caused any waves.

Any work that might require public pressure to get the case reopened is not going to be supported. The “MM community” will make sure of it. They  have made it clear they will do anything/everything to nip any public rising in the bud. Without public pressure I personally do not feel confident Maddie will ever get justice. 
Isn’t it a form of grifting to keep a case closed, so you can enjoy the perks of looking clever to people who know less about the case or squabbling with Harryrag/shirley/etc just for personal enjoyment?

GreenTara wrote:Any work that might require public pressure to get the case reopened is not going to be supported. The “MM community” will make sure of it. They  have made it clear they will do anything/everything to nip any public rising in the bud. Without public pressure I personally do not feel confident Maddie will ever get justice. 
Isn’t it a form of grifting to keep a case closed, so you can enjoy the perks of looking clever to people who know less about the case or squabbling with Harryrag/shirley/etc just for personal enjoyment?

Wtf....I didn't know that  

Jill Havern wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

Regarding the 'money' issue, it has always been an unwritten rule in the Maddie Community to not make money from those who translated the files VOLUNTARILY over the course of more than 4 YEARS. Without their effort we would not know what is contained in them.  Kate paid £100,000 to have their copy translated.  We were able to get it FREE from many people (from the Maddie Case Files who gave their time and expertise) so in my opinion...how DARE we make money from their hard work.

Never mind making money from poor Maddies demise.

Would that include your friend Anne Guedes, who wrote and published a 'Maddie' book?

What do you mean, Jill ? By the way I just realized I got (yet) no penny from my book ! I'm only concerned by the number of sold copies.

HiDeHo wrote:Regarding the 'money' issue, it has always been an unwritten rule in the Maddie Community to not make money from those who translated the files VOLUNTARILY over the course of more than 4 YEARS. Without their effort we would not know what is contained in them.  Kate paid £100,000 to have their copy translated.  We were able to get it FREE from many people (from the Maddie Case Files who gave their time and expertise) so in my opinion...how DARE we make money from their hard work.

Never mind making money from poor Maddies demise. 

I asked Bernt if he wanted to share his financial numbers, even though it's really none of our business. He was very hesitant, but agreed to let me share this because people are so out of touch with reality that he felt it might help appease those who say he's only in this to make money out of Maddie's demise. 

From 2017 up to 2025:
Fuel 7,000
Batteries 2,000
Memory cards 500
Equipment 2,500
Car costs 3,000
First print 15,000
1,500 shipping 
Translation to Portuguese 7,500
Proof reading 1,250
Free copies 1,500
Shipping free copies 2,000

43,750 Euros

Royalties average 3 Euros per copy, Bernt needs to sell at least 10,000 more copies to break even, and that's not taking alternative costs for time into this, nor inflation and present values in the break down. 

Without a big publisher nor msm writing about it, and weighing 1.5kg, anyone knowing anything about the book market, would know that without a breakthrough, it is highly unlikely that Bernt would even break even on the running costs.

Let's not forget that other people have written books on Madeleine, including Pat Brown, Anne Guedes and the late Ben Salmon - all of whom are friends of Lizzy, of course. 

Who did they get the stamp of approval from to go ahead and make money?

Who decides who gets the stamp of approval and who is to be attacked for 'making money'?

Ben's book was fiction, but was based on the Maddie case and, of course, one of the characters was based on Lizzy herself. After Ben's demise I believe it was Lizzy who encouraged his mum to have the book published on Amazon.

So can we now please stop with this nonsense of attacking Bernt for only being in this to make money? He's clearly not. He's in this for the truth - as we all are.

Maybe Bernt will let us know when he's earned his first cent...and he can buy the cakes.

V

Jill Havern wrote:

GreenTara wrote:Any work that might require public pressure to get the case reopened is not going to be supported. The “MM community” will make sure of it. They  have made it clear they will do anything/everything to nip any public rising in the bud. Without public pressure I personally do not feel confident Maddie will ever get justice. 
Isn’t it a form of grifting to keep a case closed, so you can enjoy the perks of looking clever to people who know less about the case or squabbling with Harryrag/shirley/etc just for personal enjoyment?

Wtf....I didn't know that  

Have they* not collectively made sure that JE#2 has minimal impact, minimal reach? I’m afraid that says it all to me. 
*they being the self proclaimed community with the unwritten (and therefore not transparent) rules

Jill Havern wrote:From 2017 up to 2025:
Fuel 7,000
Batteries 2,000
Memory cards 500
Equipment 2,500
Car costs 3,000
First print 15,000
1,500 shipping 
Translation to Portuguese 7,500
Proof reading 1,250
Free copies 1,500
Shipping free copies 2,000

43,750 Euros

Royalties average 3 Euros per copy, Bernt needs to sell at least 10,000 more copies to break even, and that's not taking alternative costs for time into this, nor inflation and present values in the break down. 

Without a big publisher nor msm writing about it, and weighing 1.5kg, anyone knowing anything about the book market, would know that without a breakthrough, it is highly unlikely that Bernt would even break even on the running costs.

What about the time spent, the biggest expense really, even though thinking and writing are always rewarding ?
The idea that BS might have been seeking to make money never crossed my mind. But I always thought he was looking for some kind of recognition.

crusader wrote:Petermac and Bernt Stellander are doing all they can to get the case opened again.
The whole point is to find out what happened to Madeleine and bring justice to the wrongdoers.
Even when and if the case is solved, there will still be no end of things to discuss.

Cases like this need public pressure too. 
Sorry to mention Post Office scandal again but they had proof, lots of it. Wouldn’t have made a difference without public pressure. Building of that public pressure started with the victims uniting and backing Bates. 
It seems to me the McCanns themselves would be thrilled with the efforts of this self proclaimed MM community.
Gerry couldn’t have done a better job of damping down JE#2

AnneCGuedes wrote:

Jill Havern wrote:From 2017 up to 2025:
Fuel 7,000
Batteries 2,000
Memory cards 500
Equipment 2,500
Car costs 3,000
First print 15,000
1,500 shipping 
Translation to Portuguese 7,500
Proof reading 1,250
Free copies 1,500
Shipping free copies 2,000

43,750 Euros

Royalties average 3 Euros per copy, Bernt needs to sell at least 10,000 more copies to break even, and that's not taking alternative costs for time into this, nor inflation and present values in the break down. 

Without a big publisher nor msm writing about it, and weighing 1.5kg, anyone knowing anything about the book market, would know that without a breakthrough, it is highly unlikely that Bernt would even break even on the running costs.

What about the time spent, the biggest expense really, even though thinking and writing are always rewarding ?
The idea that BS might have been seeking to make money never crossed my mind. But I always thought he was looking for some kind of recognition.

Oh dear lord, here we go!
Go to the trouble of proving it’s not about the money, now let’s make it about recognition….
Whatever we do tho, let’s not all unite and see if we can get the case reopened. 
(Post Office scandal again - they could have made out Bates was in it for himself too, but what difference would it have made? They backed him and that’s all that matters)

Lizzy, may I suggest you start a brand new thread with your first post to get your research back on topic, and rename this thread?

Of course, but there are way too many off-topic comments on here now I think.

I could have a go at transferring all the relevant posts to a new thread, or I could split the non-relevant posts to a new thread.

Or she could just start again and then rename this thread.

Let's see what Lizzy suggests.

AnneCGuedes wrote:

Liz Eagles wrote:
if you are attempting to outwit anyone on the forum with academic argument that sounds good to you please don't bother. I have a feeling you are challenging PeterMac -  please don't bother. 
It would be very nice if you would tell everyone how many languages you speak fluently.

This is not an "academic" argument, but only shows that, despite the twists and turns inflicted on reality, it always prevails in the end.
I answered you already about the nb of languages I use, as you asked.

You didn't specify which languages

Jill Havern wrote:Lizzy, may I suggest you start a brand new thread with your first post to get your research back on topic, and rename this thread?

Thanks for the suggestion Jill... I appreciate that, however, for that particular topic my reason for posting was not understood and ultimately  reduced my time for continuing to research.

I did appreciate the photo of what appears to be an aztec towel in the McCanns apartment and though it cannot be confirmed to be the same one found in Sagres, it does not eliminate it from the possibility of being the same one.

That was the point of this thread and I obviously didn't make it clear.

It is research IN PROGRESS meaning that none of it, for now, can be considered 'proof'.  I don't need alternatives suggested at this point because the main point of posting was to ask assistance in whether or not any of the timeline IS NOT POSSIBLE and the reason why.   If anyone had shown me a reason why any points were not possible I could reassess using the facts/details provided.

Basically it would help prevent me spending time on the portion of the timeline that could not be considered.

It is NOT about critiquing as NONE of it, at this point, has been established but it HAS been helpful to have Nina point out to me the 'towel' and if anyone can point me in the direction of further information for any of the timeline dates.

I would be particularly interested in the dates that Jon Corner 'popped over to PdL' and ANY information about his visits as there does not appear to be ANY police interviews with him that have been released and that to me is very 'telling'.

Apart from the  photo, I can't recall seeing anything of any value to help with the timeline so I hesitate to open another thread leaving myself open for an effort to discredit me in any way possible.

I DON'T KNOW if this timeline has credibility YET.  I am not interested in alternatives...anyone can start their own timeline on alternatives...I would just like to have input to HELP the timeline or to let me know if any of it is NOT POSSIBLE and the 'proof' why.  I certainly cannot for the life of me consider someone claiming 'it's nonsense' when they apparently have no clue about the details.

Not just opinions based on  lack of knowledge and an agenda to support other theories that don't 'fit' with mine.

Claims that I should move on from the files info as if it's the 'same old' and not worthy of anyone's time.

Can anyone point me in the direction of research that puts a timeline to what happened to Maddie AFTER she died? (after June 2nd)

I asked specifically that if Mr S book gives any detailed dates from June onwards the PLEASE give me a summary from his book and if necessary I WILL read his book.

Does he explain about De Telegraaf letter and investigation on June 14th?

Does he explain WHY there may be a reason Gerry changed the date on his blog from June 9th to June 11th?

Does he explain about the phone call between 'Russell' and Gerry on June 10th (that was denied)

Does he explain WHY the PJ WENT TO COURT and requested locations (and possible 'keywords' that were alerted to) of ALL the T9 phone calls from May - September?

Did those results lead to a location near a disused barn and an aztec towel just before December?

Does he explain WHY the police questioned the trip to Huelva on August 3rd when they disappeard for 2 1/2 hours.

Does he explain about the PJ not having jurisdiction over phone calls in Spain, but apparently had the Spanish Police help with phone pings and give locations (from CCTV?) that the McCanns should  not have needed to be.

These are some of the issues I am researching and if Sudden Impulse has some answers to those dates I would really appreciate it.

Efforts to minimise my efforts have fallen on deaf ears...

So Jill... unless you feel there is a good reason to repost the thread I am going to have to get back to doing what I do best.

BUT so good of you to suggest it...Thank you again.

If the comments continue to resort to discrediting me then I'm done...I have never been treated so disgracefully...except by Pros.

#422
Lizzy, You cannot go a step further in your research until you read the BS book - not so much the botany excursion but his general analysis of the case and specific incidents. And you must watch JE#2. BS is very impressive. Similarly, you must read, if you have already not done so, “The Truth of the Lie” and the forensics reports. You simply cannot call yourself a researcher otherwise. I think it would give you power to be able to discard some ideas put forward by readers who have not absorbed the rich data there. For example, they get mixed up with DNA samples, blood samples/splatters, bodily fluid splatters, the smelll of blood, the smell of death (cadaverine), the messy stuff in the garbage bag. I appreciate that you have done trillions of hours already. The diagrams and tables are always useful. It would be a real shame if all that work finished up in a repetitive loop of you-said-he-said-they-said on this forum. Many of us don’t know the big players; for myself, it is really confusing trying to follow the development of ideas from multiple members conversing with or about you. I wish you all the best. For what it is worth, I believe (a) the makeup photo was the last photo; (b) the accident did not take place in the apartment but she died in the apartment during the day on Wednesday.

#422
Lizzy, And to answer the question you asked about the timeline after death, I do not have a contribution to make. I am at the stage where I am re-reading Kate’s book and concentrating on the segments where there is a great serve of waffle (why is it there) and seeking segments that one would expect to be covered in more detail than they are (if at all) and then going to other sources for triangulation or expansion. An example of the former is the stupid tennis balls photo. And example of the latter is the sailing excursion.

HiDeHo wrote:
If the comments continue to resort to discrediting me then I'm done...I have never been treated so disgracefully...except by Pros.

I can understand that.

I thought the same when a group of 'WRHTMM' FB members (who are also members of your group) descended on my FB group to discredit Peter's thread a couple of weeks ago when all he did was post a video of the upcoming JE podcast with no comment whatsoever.

I was then banned from their group!

Or how about this from another one of your FB members?
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t17640p150-off-topic-mande70#499643
I'm certainly not aware of such behaviour from CMOMM members towards you.

So unneccessary.