UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧

I?ve repeatedly stated what I think of Stellander and why I think this particular revelation might be significant (ie no motive to lie about something which contradicts his own narrative).  It?s no different to you fixating on Gerry?s 10.13pm - you think he?s a liar except on this one point which supports your argument.  So, repeatedly asking me the same question isn?t going to get us anywhere is it?  You appear completely unwilling to accept that it is possible that the German police actually have photos of a dead Madeleine and I don?t accept that Gerry was recording the time accurately to the minute in his second statement and in so doing destroying his own alibi.  Unlike you I do make time to consider people?s motivations and question what they might gain from lying about certain things they reveal. I find it a helpful exercise, perhaps make time yourself one day to do likewise?  Do you agree with the premise that people usually tell lies to give themselves or someone they care about an advantage in some way?  That might help you to understand when people are lying and when they are not.
PS: there?s virtually nothing in this case we agree on as far as I recall.  You have far more in common with Bernt Stellander than you do with me in that regard.

One thing we have agreed on for several years is that Stellander?s claims come apart even under even the most light weight pressure. We have agreed for several years that he lacks credibility. I stand by my opinion, do you think that you were wrong?

hi faithlily,
Don't you remember that the German police claimed they had photos of a dead Madeleine.
The meeting between Bernt and Friedrich will have taken place just before the claim was made public.
So, what has been happening? Have some people been taking a second bite of the same cherry?

What advantage can you perceive Stellander gaining in divulging the info from Fulscher?s source about the photos?

I don?t dislike you. We disagree on several things but agree others. Defining each other by what we think happened in this case is rather childish, don?t you think?

Now do you see Stellander as a credible person?

I?ve repeatedly stated what I think of Stellander and why I think this particular revelation might be significant (ie no motive to lie about something which contradicts his own narrative).  It?s no different to you fixating on Gerry?s 10.13pm - you think he?s a liar except on this one point which supports your argument.  So, repeatedly asking me the same question isn?t going to get us anywhere is it?  You appear completely unwilling to accept that it is possible that the German police actually have photos of a dead Madeleine and I don?t accept that Gerry was recording the time accurately to the minute in his second statement and in so doing destroying his own alibi.  Unlike you I do make time to consider people?s motivations and question what they might gain from lying about certain things they reveal. I find it a helpful exercise, perhaps make time yourself one day to do likewise?  Do you agree with the premise that people usually tell lies to give themselves or someone they care about an advantage in some way?  That might help you to understand when people are lying and when they are not.
PS: there?s virtually nothing in this case we agree on as far as I recall.  You have far more in common with Bernt Stellander than you do with me in that regard.

Which is exactly what I said originally and you challenged it for reasons best known to yourself.

I think you need to read my post again.

Even ChatGPT say that they can sometimes be wrong.

Absolutely, which is why I asked you to highlight anything you have found that I have sourced and posted from Chat GPT which you considered to be false or inaccurate..  So far you have identified nothing but deflected to ask instead about whether I would use Chat GPT as a tool for diagnosing sick children.  Very strange.