New German suspect in Madeleine McCann mystery disappearance.

[faithlilly]

And they would try again at a future trial, why on earth wouldn?t they?

Of course they would?and every piece of incriminating evidence. I don?t see your point.

[faithlilly]

Because it has absolutely no relevance to anything.  Would I have ignored my symptoms?  No.  Did I get good advice from Chat GPT as soon as they developed?  Yes.  Now what do you want to know?

Even ChatGPT say that they can sometimes be wrong.

[faithlilly]

I accept that he could be making it up but as I said before and will say again - it makes absolutely no sense for him to make up a story that flies in the face of his own daft theories and which potentially could get him in trouble with a lawyer, by lying about what he said.  That suggests to me that Fulscher probably did tell him something along those lines, that is a logical conclusion imo.  It also makes sense in the wider context - the Germans have said they have evidence which convinces them that Madeleine is dead and if we saw it we would be convinced too.  Now, feel free to ignore information which doesn?t suit you, at least to his credit Stellander acknowledged it and tried to make sense of it, even though it was not what he was hoping to hear from Fulscher.

It is you who is believing a story from an individual that for years you have stated is a charlatan. I always knew he was a charlatan so I believe nothing he says. I don?t need to waste time hypothesising as to his motive?.he is a liar no matter what his motivation. Have you now think that Stellander is credible?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Of course they would?and every piece of incriminating evidence. I don?t see your point.

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

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It is you who is believing a story from an individual that for years you have stated is a charlatan. I always knew he was a charlatan so I believe nothing he says. I don?t need to waste time hypothesising as to his motive?.he is a liar no matter what his motivation. Have you now think that Stellander is credible?

I?m only asking questions dear, I didn?t say I believed every word he said, merely pointing out how strange it is that he would make up something which contradicts his own theory and which could potentially cause him a problem with Fulscher, a man who is a lawyer.  You don?t need to waste your time doing anything at all you don?t want to but here you are arguing with someone you clearly dislike about something pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things.  Move on.

[faithlilly]

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.

[faithlilly]

I?m only asking questions dear, I didn?t say I believed every word he said, merely pointing out how strange it is that he would make up something which contradicts his own theory and which could potentially cause him a problem with Fulscher, a man who is a lawyer.  You don?t need to waste your time doing anything at all you don?t want to but here you are arguing with someone you clearly dislike about something pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things.  Move on.

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?

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

[Gildas]

I haven?t kept up with this story Gildas but I very much doubt that it?s true.

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?

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

[faithlilly]

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?

[faithlilly]

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

Fulscher?s source, presumably someone within the German police. Mmmm I wonder why the German police would leak to their prime suspect that they have evidence that they don?t have? That is a head scratcher.

Of course if Fulscher knows that it?s not true why would he keep it secret?

[Gildas]

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

The point I was making was that the source was not giving any inside knowledge, but telling him what was soon to be public knowledge.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

You either didn?t read my post or you didn?t understand it.  Stellander thinks Madeleine died in an accident in the apartment.  That?s what you believe.  He thinks the parents covered it up.  You do too.  He thinks there is some conspiracy involving the Tapas group as do you.  OK, you disagree on when exactly it happened and how they disposed of the body but basically you are both in the same camp.  Me, I think all you Anti McCanns? claims fall apart under the most cursory examination.  I definitely don?t think I?m wrong but I do think you?ve all managed to convince yourselves that you are right and don?t want to hear anything which challenges your theories, which is why I find Stellander?s revelation about the photographs so surprising.