An anonymous has asked quite a few times, and very legitimately so, how the Smith sighting proves that "The Stroller" was carrying a LIVE little girl.
I’ve delayed, for timing reasons only, the adequate answer the best that I could. And although I will approach the subject today, anonymous, please don’t expect an answer today. But, hopefully, you will understand that it’s coming…
In the Smith Sighting, one thing that I think that is consensual amongst Black & White Hats alike is that due to the fact that the girl carried by "The Stroller" looked like, dressed exactly like and was barefooted like Maddie, that she and Maddie are totally related to one another.
Most, almost everyone except me and Ironside, go as far as to say that they are the one and the same: Madeleine Beth McCann.
The first divergence is that the Black Hats say that she was alive and being abducted, whilst we, White Hats, go for being carried dead and that "The Stroller" was getting rid of her body.
This is a White Hat blog, and we all, Black & White alike, know she was not abducted.
So let’s continue under the assumption that not only is she dead, as she’s a dead weight.
Now, here the consensus ends amongst the White Hats.
Some say that he was heading for the beach, others (I think I said this myself) for the Church.
Well, I say, it was NEITHER the Church, nor the beach. Nor was the girl dead, and due to that sole factor, she wasn’t Maddie, as I’m certain that Maddie was already dead at the time.
So let’s debunk these body disposal theories, created, naively, by intentional misleading.
This will be a three-fold issue. I shall tackle first the Church, and that will be today, then the beach and only after that, dear anonymous, the dead or alive issue.
As said, both Church and beach scenarios, make only sense if the carried girl was dead. So, although totally convinced otherwise, but for arguments sake, we’ll assume that she was dead and that it was required to hide the body, if only for that particular night.
PdL at the time the Church was built was a small Portuguese fishing village. Today, it is small Portuguese touristic village.
The churches in small villages had two main purposes other than the obvious cult fulfillment reason. One was to warn villagers of tragedy, like fires, or in fishing villages like PdL, the overturning of a fishing boat (in those days fishermen didn’t know how to swim, so that meant almost certain drowning); the other, to be the village’s social center of gravity.
A place where everyone gathered, for town meetings, town parties or whatever was deemed required to gather people for.
The Church has always played a crucial role in the development of modern societies. And in small catholic towns, the Church Square, or Portuguese “Largo da Igreja” is a very relevant social location. A very public place.
That’s why the Priests were, and still are, so very socially important in small villages. They play a pivotal role in the places they exercise their activity. The local Church is not only the place of worship as is also the place villagers gather to.
Where they go when they want to know the news. Not inside, but outside. You know, the place where people are aclaimed and lynched...
But lets not forget the inside.
As we’ve seen in almost every episode of “Little House on the Prairie” it’s the perfect place to hold a small town meeting.
Around 20/30 people can be seated quite comfortably listening to someone in a forum designed for the effect, to listen to a speaker.
PdL, as a small village it is, smaller it was when they built the Church, is not known for its abundant local resources.
I’ve never been inside that particular Church, but I’ve been in many, many other small churches in the Country, as the Religious Art in Portugal is a treasure that few know but should be world renown.
So I believe it to be like so many, just a simple small town church. A very simple building. No underground tunnels, not even an underground floor.
To have that, it would mean excavations, and these costs money, a lot of money. Underground tunnels and secret chambers are only for the like of Harry Potter, who I believe, is a supporter of the McCanns.
So, if you believe that the PdL Church has all mysterious tunnels and secret rooms, do feel free, the next time you catch a train, to do so by running into a column in the middle of the railway station. Please just warn me beforehand. I will love to be there.
I’m sure that the Pdl Church it is like the majority of the small churches in Portugal, a central aisle for the cult headed with the altar, and one to three other rooms: one, mandatory, the Vestry, for the priest to prepare himself, the others for storage and possibly Sunday school.
And certainly no fridges. Red wine conserves very nicely in room temperature.
No conditions whatsoever to store a body. Even of a four year old. And no toilet. You know, to clean up the mess that a dead body always leaves behind.
You don’t know? Ask the McCanns. Or better yet… ask a mother and son. They’re the experts, whilst the McCann couple was a bit sloppy on that issue…
So, why dispose of a body in the PdL Church?
Certainly, say you, it would be the only place, where the GNR wouldn’t search that night.
Let me clarify that a Church is not an Embassy. If the Police dogs had picked up Maddie’s scent to the door of the Church, they would go inside. As in any other residence, so that is false argumentation.
Well, you insist, it would be ONLY for THAT night. It might well have been, but only if you’re keen in hiding a body by laying it on the grass of Old Trafford’s center field, knowing that the very next day, by your own doing, a Manchester United vs Chelsea match took place.
The church would be the natural place to people to converge once knowing the news.
Sure, they would go to the Ocean Club to look, but come to the Church Square to discuss the issue.
The church and the surrounding areas became filled up with people, as the TVs showed. Where were the McCanns supported by all the unselfish people that gave all they had to help them? Don’t know? Look at the pictures.
And to take the body out of that Church after that, not even with three Tanner’s abduction theory.
Talk about risky business…
Yes, maintain you, it’s all very nice, and although illogical to the point of absurdity, is not ABSOLUTELY absurd. So it doesn’t invalidate the fact that the body, albeit all that, could have been put there just for that night. Agree.
So let me debunk this once and for all. We all agree that "The Stroller" wouldn’t have walked all that way to dispose of the body in the Church UNLESS he was sure that upon arrival, he would find an open door.
No the Priest does not sleep inside. And no, "The Stroller" wouldn’t have gone there on a hope… I’m supposing here that nor did Gerry, nor any of the Tapas, as tourists that they were, had the Priest’s contact. House or cellphone.
So, I think that it’s PROVED that if Gerry used the Church to dispose of the body then him, or somebody from the Tapas, knew someone in PdL who had it the Priests contact.
You say yes? You’re wrong. I don’t want you to agree with me. I want you to think with me.
I bend my theories to fact, never do I bend fact just to make my theories correct. It only proves that somebody contacted the Priest, and that this contact was set off by one of the Tapas. That is all it proves.
We have two possible scenarios here:
- Some Tapas individual called “The Helper”, “The Helper” called the Priest and told the him what had happened, and what was expected from him. The Priest then agreed, “The Helper” then called the Tapas individual and told him that there was a green light to use the Church. This means that somebody IN PdL would have had to help the “Tapas individual”;
- Some Tapas individual called London, London called the Vatican, the Vatican called Lisbon and Lisbon woke up one startled Priest. This means that the Priest was who IN PdL helped the “Tapas individual”.
Well, neither scenario happened. None listed nor any in between.
The Priest never got a a call that night.
He probably took knowledge of the facts as the majority of us did, sometime on May 4th.
Why? Because if you’re willing to help as described, and have the power to influence the Priest to act as said, then CERTAINLY you will not risk having a dead body walking for 500 metres, when you can just put it in a car and drive it, unnoticed, to the Church.
And before you even open your mouth saying that there was no car, let me say that, in the first scenario “The Helper” would have provided one, and in the second, the priest would have been ordered to go and pick the body up.
There was no body disposal at the Church.
The body would ONLY have been walked on the street, if the distance to cover would be so short that putting it in a car, driving it there and taking it out, would mean the same or the approximate risk of taking it on foot.
That would mean that the body would be taken to a very, very near location…
Yes, Murats, you can start sweating. I’ll be involving you in all this mess very, very soon.
Then, ask you, quite adequately, why was Father Pacheco's name so involved in this? Let me give you my opinion,
John Geraghty, a local ex-pat, pictured above, got the Church keys from the Priest. I don’t know under what circumstances, but I do believe that the clergyman had very little to say in the "negotiations".
Do you know a better place where the involved could hold meetings, unsuspectingly (even though watched going inside), under the disguise of moral support to the tormented parents? I don’t. It’s perfect.
Father Pacheco must have been prohibited to enter his own Church, so very early on, found out that they wanted to use it but certainly not for praying. And he wasn’t pleased.
He probably reported it to his higher religious echelon, and, probably too, was told, very convincingly, to keep his opinions to himself.
But that would explain the coldness by which the Pope received the couple in Rome…
If anyone has been vilified in all this, Father Pacheco is certainly one.
Next, debunking body disposal at the beach.