Monday, 14 June 2010

Child-Carrying 101

Dedicated to you, my dearest friend.
Sometimes you have to go back to basics, back to the old school days where all sounded useless and boring, but today we know that that information captured by us made us whatever we happen to be today.

When explaining a more complex issue, we rarely give credit to those basics that allow us to understand the subject at hand. We’re awed by the new learning and we tend to forget that we could only have apprehended such new knowledge only if we built before a solid structure to implement the novelty. And how we human take for granted that structure. Or any structure.

Today I intend to handle child-carrying basics, or as in American, child-carrying 101.

In this process, we have one constant, the carrier. The adult.

The carried can vary in type, reason and way of handling. These simple variables will determine how we pick up a child and carry it from point A to point B.

There are two type of children one basically has to carry, two different reasons for doing so and two basic ways of carrying the child.

Type of children: TODDLER (T) and BABY (B).

The main difference between them is the cooperation they provide the carrier with by the muscular mass of each type of child.

A BABY does have strong enough limb muscles, but lacks strength in both the back and the neck. Unlike the TODDLER, a BABY cannot stand upright, so, to be transported needs to have its upper body (back) and head fully supported.

One only transports a BABY in the VERTICAL position to have him burp, and return him to the supported HORIZONTAL position as quickly as possible:

On the other hand a TODDLER has much more muscular mass than a BABY, so is heavier and much more tiresome to transport:

Different reasons: SHORT (S) or LONG (L) distances.

There are a multitude of reasons to transport a child, but I want to just focus on these two, as they are what we instinctively take into account when we pick up a child.

Some factors, like being asleep or not, might influence the decision, but, for example, it’s irrelevant if the child is awake or not, sick or healthy, if you know you have to transport it  for 1,000 yards.

The same rationale applies if you have to transport it a dozen of steps.

For example, SHORT is when a child that has fallen asleep in a car and you want to carry from there to its cot or bed, and an example for LONG is if after you had a highly motivating lecture about tennis upon arrival on your overseas holiday at Tapas and wish to go dine at the only possible place: the Millenium Restaurant.

Ways of carrying a child:  over your shoulder or VERTICALLY (V);  across your chest or HORIZONTALLY (H):

So you have the following combinations: BSH, BLH, BSV, BLV, TSH, TLH, TSV and TLV.

Never thought it could be that complicated, did you?

In effect, whenever presented with a decision to make, any decision, the brain always initiates a calculus, pondering all different possible constants and variables and respective effects, coming up with a mathematical result, that we simplify its complexity by calling it “logical”.

Rarely, I repeat, do we give much importance to how wonderful is this machine we’ve been blessed with daily and what it’s able to achieve. We know its good, but don’t really value how good it is.

This post is about just one of those daily calculations. To understand why we choose the way we carry a child and how the other variables influence our decision.

We’re obviously analyzing the transportation of human being by another human being. Trolleys, buggies, strollers, prams and such, invented to facilitate this task, are not the issue, and only will be used as initial points or final destinations for SHORT distance carrying (S).

For a BABY, the HORIZONTAL position is the ideal way to be carried. It supports, and protects, the head and the back, and that is how we carry a baby either for SHORT or LONG distances.

The latter to be avoided at all costs due to the fragility of the body. Just think what would make you carry a newborn baby 1,000 yards. It would have to significant and you’d certainly walk each one of those yards as if you were stepping on eggs…

It’s the fragility, or the lack of cooperation of the muscular mass that is the key to the decision. The weight is not even taken into account. Example of that, is the countless hours some parents do spend with a baby in their arms in that position, desperately trying to get that crying machine into some sort of sleep.

But the HORIZONTAL position is only used to carry a TODDLER for SHORT distances, and only if the TODDLER is unconscious, for example and most commonly, asleep, or if conscious, ailing from some disease that has weakened him.

Here, there’s no fragility, but certainly there’s the weight.

The older the T, the heavier its muscular mass, the bigger the strain on the transporters arms and back. One naturally avoids this and resorts to picking up the sleeping TODDLER to a HORIZONTAL position, but quickly placing him the VERTICAL position for transportation effects.

You ONLY carry a TODDLER in the HORIZONTAL position if you don’t wish to disturb his sleep, and, even then, only if the distance is very SHORT. Otherwise, you’ll just put the TODDLER on your shoulder and away you go.

This has got to do with center of gravity of the bodies involved. The nearer in verticality they are, the less force is required. That’s why we tilt our bodies when transporting a weight. If the weight is in front, we tilt backwards, if on the shoulder or side, we do it sideways
As weight is almost an irrelevant variant when carrying a BABY, we hardly compensate. But it’s much different when carrying a toddler. Here the carrier compensates much more in the HORIZONTAL position than in the VERTICAL position.

What has this to do with the Smith Sighting? Well, as you know, we have two versions of how was the child seen.

According to the Smith Family, "The Stroller" carried the little girl in the VERTICAL position, but according to the McCanns, via the “Cutting Edge” documentary, he carried her in the HORIZONTAL position.

As you know, I tend to go with the Smith’s version.

That’s the natural position and it means that the girl in question presented cooperative muscle mass, which in turn means that she was alive. But let’s not discard the McCann version. What we know, from them, is that Jane Tanner saw him cross the road, from left to right, and some time later, he was seen heading from North to South by the Smith Family. That means he followed the following route:
That makes around about 700 metres (770 yards). Only from the Apartment 5A to the Smith Sighting mind you.

We, in the McCann version, don’t know how many more metres or miles did “The Stroller” walk AFTER having been seen. Also, and also according to the McCann version, I’m supposing that he carried the girl always in the same position, the HORIZONTAL one.

A normal 4 year old girl weighs 16,1 kilograms (35,49 pounds):.
That’s almost the weight of 2 cases of beer (20,08 pounds each). Now, you try and carry 2 cases of beer across your chest in your arms for the distance referred above, and then some more.

Do take into account that unwritten scientific rule that says "the same mass increases in weight the further the distance it has to be carried."

I won’t try it because I know I can’t do it.

But if I could've, when I crossed the Smiths I wouldn’t have hidden my face away. I would have my head thrown back, grimacing loudly from the sheer pain of my back and arms that certainly would be threatening  to dismember, as I would probably be slipping all over the place due to the pouring sweat.

I, like "The Stroller", wouldn't answer a "Is she asleep?" however polite it might be. Probably something much, much less polite would cross my mind to answer that question. Or any question, for that matter.

TOTALLY unpractical and unless he was trying to prove a point, I would say impossible.

This is important because when the McCanns place “The Stroller” with a girl carried in the HORIZONTAL position, in their desperate attempt to give credibility to the Tanner Sighting.

And as they have done that, they’re not only lying, but are also definitely interlinking “The Stroller” with Maddie.

And, and this is what is really important, they are, in effect, forsaking all other possibilities for that man to be just a father carrying his daughter somewhere, as no man would carry his daughter in the HORIZONTAL position all the way down Rua da Escola Primária and on towards the “Kelly’s Triangle”.


  1. What a wonderful sight to meet my eyes the 'BOSS' is back in the saddle.

    Excellent article and well thought out as usual.

    Where the hell is that sidekick of yours...He used to get on my nerves but I miss him a lot.

  2. The first thing we are taught when holding a new born baby is support the neck.

    This would be a living child a baby who has yet the strength to support his or her head.

    The same would be for a dead child or animal ,the head becomes too heavy for the neck and flops, lolls, because the support is no longer there.

    Martin Smith and his family mentioned in detail how the 'Stroller' carried the child...not one of them mentioned the childs head being supported in anway by a hand. Therefore, there can be only one conclusion ,the child was alive.

    All would be lost if for one moment Martin Smith had suggested this child was dead...that was not the aim of Mccann...Mccanns aim was for a witness to an abduction...Martin Smith WAS that witness...he has confirmed for Mccann the child WAS alive.


  3. Scientific spirit, so analytical. Scrutiny.

    Demonstrating Your ´s reasoning in a comprehensive manner, as should be.

    It was also a lot of work, excellent of course. Always...

    I believe You still do not feel comfortable returning to this .... but, You did very well on behalf of FRIENDSHIP!

    To be a FRIEND is also continuing to work even worried.

    It is a hymn of Friendship this post back.

    Very touching because You are a courageous person as well as the person who contributes to this blog.

    Both brave and full of strength.


  4. How the McsDiabolics worked hard to not go inside a prision.

  5. Very important work.

    Iron and Text: congratulations again.

  6. To SweetSide and SweetText: the best!

  7. Unpublished Anon., THANK YOU!

  8. Anon 4:46,

    My sidekick was offered a job where, most likely, wouldn't have as much time to dedicate to the blog as he has had.

    He went for the interview, and, if not for the comment above, I would've thought that he had found Maddie and was now in the same cellar as her.

    When he returns I do intend to use the same arguments on him as Dani is thinking of using on me: a good old-fashioned well directed boot to the butt.

  9. Nice, a new job.I hope Iron can get it.

    But he post sometimes,no?

    Don ´t kick him .

    Nice day to SweetIron and SweetSide?


  10. Excellent article Textusa. You're right, no man would carry a child in the horizontal position all this way down. Besides I think by nature the vertical position gives protection, for example against the cold. Is it possible Jane Tanner (her sighting of a 'not a good parent') is making this senseless statement to confirm the horizontal position?
    Never understood why the McCanns and Co disregarded the fact that the Smiths saw a man carrying a child in the vertical position, imo a very important detail when your child has been abducted.

  11. Because, M.NL, the Jane Tanner sighting is real. She has described what she has seen. But I'll handle that later on.

  12. Hello Friends,Hello!


  13. Hello!

    You are brilliant Textusa. I always read your blogs. They're very interesting and very well explained. Thank you for all your hard work!

    An Argentine woman

  14. Off-course, the child seen by the Smiths was alive ( one of the Tapas with age and figure close to Madeleine, probably her friend). O'Brien and Gerry were out of the table during the same time. Kate went out of the table almost immediately after Gerry arrived and said something to her( 'end the plan', could be). Madeleine never sleep on the bed from where they claim she was snatched. There is lack of alive evidences of Madeleine in the flat ( no hair or toothbrush or dirty clothes to hand to the police to get samples of her ADN or give the smell to the GNR dogs, who search for her at the beginning. Amaral said, they gave a towel to help the dogs and by the Lab reports we know that the sample of Maddie ADN was picked-up from a pillowcase). The twins were in the cots without bedsheets or blankets, in a cold night. Means somebody bring them there, deep sleeping, just before raising the alarm. they were in another place. probably all the childs were togheter on the same flat, out of the 5A. This allow the plan to be made without disturbance and the flat to be clean properly. Most probably Madeleine was the only child not sedated that night( she no longer need it). The other ones were sedated with Calpol night or any other sedative. Actifed, very common and used to unblock the childs nose is very popular and has a sedative effect leaving a tired child completely asleep. Jane Tanner sight could be Amelie asleep been moved into the 5A. They need an alibi in case somebody out of the group saw the twins moved around the 5A. her sight was useful for both situations- the abduction and the transfer of the twins. She knows exactly which pyjama the child of her sight was wearing. She gave a poor description of the pyjama to allow her not giving a detailled description of the man who carried the child. And the pyjama came out on a picture few days later. The puzzle start matching. well planned but because there is no perfect crimes, that one fail in the details- the timeline in Madeleine coloring book, ripped and written by her father ( something that any father of an abducted child will preserve until she was recovered), the record of the creche for May 3 and the last picture near the pool ( all failed details which speak volumes).
    I hope PJ reopen the case and stop the fraudulent Fund.
    Keep working Textusa. Your articles show a lot of accurate work. There is no perfect crimes and a crack is what Madeleine need, to break the pact and help her, achieve justice.

  15. Anons 5:50 and 6:24

    Thank you. Complimentary words never go unnoticed and gratefully unfelt.

    It's nice to have such nice feedback :-)

  16. Loved Ironside's poem on the site of Himself. And I really appreciate your hard work. Soon may this conclude. How can these people have got away with this for so long???

  17. My dearest Maria, How can I find the words to thank you for your support these last long two weeks.
    I can only find the words I long to say in will be sending you many songs in the coming days.

    Tell me how is your arm and are you suffering?

    We will speak again soon


  18. Fiona called to Jane Tanner as Jane was leaving HER apartment...'Jane, Madeleines gone'

    If Jane was in her room then she could not have been at the table when the alarm was raised and if Jane was in her room what the hell was she doing there...apart from watching 'eggmen moving children who match Martin Smiths child'

    There is also another family the 'Naylor' family who ate in the tapas that night...there have been later reportes the Naylors were close family friends and were at a church service of the McCanns...

    No witness statements from this family in the PJ file...but they exist

    the waiters table settings from that night are on Pamalams Blog...The Naylor table setting are on the top of the list....

    Did the Naylors help search? ...we do not know , if any, what part did they play.

    Someone went to the trouble to wake Wilkins to tell him a child had ben abducted but did not ask him to help search.

    The NAYLORS ....were they also informed and why ?if the they ARE close friends of McCanns have they also been kept hidden and not had their 15 minutes of fame from the Mccanns.

    We also have a mother and son who can only alibi each other by telling us they both heard a siren at 10.30pm...a siren the whole village did not hear.

    Too,too many loose ends...

  19. Dani :

    Oh,oh,oh ! And it is not Christmas oh,oh,oh.........

    I am FINE ! Oh,oh,oh,oh,....................



  20. Thank you for such a enlightening and personal blog. On one side, I'm learning what should have been a quickly solved crime, wasn't, and why it wasn't. On another way, this is a very personal, very candid, blog, making me, all of us that come here to read it, feel like integral part of a family. I've learned to come here daily to find truth and respect even if neither of you haven't written anything new. Thank you.

  21. I, too, believe that the Jane Tanner sighting was real. I look forward very much to reading your views on the subject.

  22. Anon 10:39, thank you.

    LAS, I appeal to your patience. As you can see, I'm still one post behind in answering a reader's question about the little girl being alive or not. Then, I must tell you that the McCanns themselves have been surprisingly cooperative in sheding a light on the Smith Sighting.
    After that we have to listen to what Apartment 5A has to tell us, as well as to listen the so many interesting things that the Tapas Bar have been screaming at us for the past 3 years...
    That done, I hope to tackle our high-schoo-stupid and gullible friend, Jane Tanner. As you can see, there's a long way to get there, but we will. Slowly, like carving turkey on Thanksgiving... if you cut too big a piece, you just end up with dry, tasteless meat (sorry vegetarians..)

  23. Jane Tanner .......... how unlucky is she with all the co-incidences in the McCann case?
    Jane Tanner and her partner Russell O'Brien were two of the .....for sake of a better description ..... Tapas 9.

    Jane came to prominence in the case in particular because she allegedly spotted Madeleine being carried away by a man just after Gerry McCann had done his check on the apartment.

    In fact in between Gerry doing his check and Kate discovering Madeleine was missing, Jane Tanner, her partner Russell and Matthew Oldfield another in the group, are the only other 3 who had left the table.

    So Jane was in the right place at the right time when she spotted 'Madeleine' being taken away. Her testimony however has been discredited by another witness who says it cant have happened the way she described.

    Then comes reports that both Tanner, her husband and Robert Murat were all in Exeter in the days before the holiday began.
    3 years ago
    Additional Details
    Now we have new reports that another couple who werent part of the Tapas 9 but who were in the same resort, and had been questioned by police over their hire car, were friends of ...yep ... Jane Tanner.

    Jane Tanner and her partner were regularly up and down that night because allegedly their eldest child who was Madeleine's age was sick and had been vomiting. They chose to still go out that night and just have 'regular' checkups on their child who had been vomiting rather than have one or both of them stay with her that night.
    3 years ago

    Now Im not saying anything, but how unlucky for Jane that of all people 'she' was the one who spotted Madeleine being taken, although another witness said it was impossible for that to have happened the way she said it did. 'she' was the one who was in the same UK town as suspect Robert Murat days before the holiday. 'she' was the one who was friends with a couple who were questioned over their car hire even though they had nothing to do with the Tapas 9. 'she' was one of only 3 people, along with her husband, who had left the table in between Gerry checking on Madeleine and Kate discovering she was missing.

  24. anon 7:23, this is why I don't believe on any result from the court case between Taner and Murat. Murat, like the Mccann's, cash in with Madeleine saga and gave ridiculous explanations for the mobile calls between him and Malinka on May 3, 2007.

  25. Great Work Textusa, you're right to take us back to the basics because this is where the key is. Today I saw the very first (first ever!)roses in buttons on my Maddy Rose Tree I planted in summer 2007. How's this for good hope?! Thought to share the good sign with you All and it's nice to see you all here in the comments, xxxMag

  26. Sorry to burst the bubble, but the child being carried was dead, and if dead no need to support the neck. That is why people who are dead are called 'stiffs'. Only if Madeleine had been found immediately would she have needed to have her neck supported. Obviously she wasn't as there had been time for cadaver scent to build up. That means she would have been rigid or semi rigid, but definitely not floppy. No doubt this is why Mr Smith asked if the child was asleep because he really subconsciously was thinking the child was not looking alive. Also her legs or feet were likely set in a strange position, not just hanging down if she, as would appear, had been found lying on the floor.

  27. Anon 12:44,

    Don't ever aopoligise for "bursting the bubble" in this blog. Only through debate can the truth be reached.

    "Rigor mortis" commences after about 3 hours, reaches maximum stiffness after 12 hours, and gradually dissipates until approximately 72 hours (3 days).

    Like cadaverine, it just doesn’t happen the minute a person dies. It’s a bodily reaction to the lack of other normal responses when that body was alive. I said in the post before that many a “living” thing happens after death. “Rigor mortis” is one.

    If Maddie was killed around 18.30, the time I think she was, that that would mean that the process was would be in its 1,5 hour. That would mean 1,5/12, which would make it hardly noticeable and, in that case, only on the limbs. The neck would still be too heavy.

    Apologise to put things so bluntly, but if she was fully in "rigor mortis", then it would take a physical effort to “break” the body and molded it to the carrier’s body in such a way that she would seem to be asleep. So that you get the picture imagine that either a raw spaghetti strand was being carried (unmolded to the body) or a fully cooked one (uncooperative muscular mass).

    But thank you for your input, it was much more important than you think. According to it, and Jane Tanner’s sighting, it limits the time of death to around 6 hours before the Jez & Gerry talk, probable time of the "Tanner's Sighting".

  28. Good morning bubble bursting here...I wrote a post where I suggested McCann was carrying Maddie as you suggest after RM had set in.

    Martin Smith even said in his statement the man looked 'Akward' carrying the child...this of course may have meant the child looked awkard in his arms.

    Martin Smith and his observations of this child need a lot more investigation, sadly we cannot do this here.

    Mr.Smith has been visited by the McCanns 'Crack team' or this is what we have been told by the 'Pink Fluff'.

    Mrs.Smith said she did ask if the child was sleeping and forgot to mention it in her statement.

    Both hold water and I go from a RM Madeleine to a Tanner sedated child.

    The sticking point is Mccann and his odd remark 'Maddie was ALIVE when she left the apartmnent' we know this is not the case...

    A child however was alive in a simulated abductors arms which was NOT Madeleine when SHE left the apartment...If Smith had made the slightest suggestion the child he saw may have been dead the FUND would not have been so easy to pull off...and this is after all about money and the McCanns life style...'Madeleine' is a business nothing more and nothing less.

    We had a sighting a few weeks ago where a man said he saw Maddie in the back of a small white van..'Her little finger moved' keeping once more Maddie and the fund alive.

    Thank you for your thoughts and have agreat Sunday.

  29. Mag,

    I’m not superstitious (God forbid, knock on wood, knock on wood), but do bring on every POSITIVE and GOOD sign.

    I do believe that optimism is as contagious as pessimism. And I also believe that optimism influences us in our actions positively as pessimism does negatively.

    Thank you, and may those roses bloom gloriously!

  30. Uppsssssss, I have read so much today,here.

    To Mag: how You are a so nice person!

    " Today I saw the very first (first ever!)roses in buttons on my Maddy Rose Tree I planted in summer 2007."

    My Dear it was a nice gesture .Lovely.



  31. Madeleine was hide in a blue tennis bag during the "Rigor mortis" proccess. This allow the body to be accomodate inside the bag. Then the bag went to the wardrobe, the balcony and the gareden under the balcony. From there a house or a car? A house, I believe. A car was too risky because GNR were largely known by their stop operations on the road, even without any crime to be investigated. After may 3 night, all cars were inspected by the police.
    I still looking at what the cleaner said to RTP in the Front-line programe. She cleanned the flat at last time, on May 2. Mccann's were there but no childs ( in the Creche I presume). Mccann's said they are leaving. Leaving the flat or the country? They went to the balcony and then went away. Is the same balcony from their room. The lady discribed a cot in the room but nothing about the Tennis bag. She did not pay attention to it or was not in the wardrobe where PJ pic it in a picture? Why the room and the cots position were changed in May 3?
    No way for Gerry carrying a dead child in PDL streets. He carried Tanner child ( with same age and close figure to Madeleine).

  32. No blog de Pamalan estão lá fotos e a Filha dos Payne é incrivelmente parecida com Madeleine.

    Absolutamente confundíveis.

  33. LP and MBM
    (almost end of the page)
    on :

  34. WILKINS....if he had not gone to PDL and flown on the same flight as the McCanns..if they had not become friends and played tennis....if Wilkins child had not been restless on May 3rd ...if,if and if...What would the abduction story planned for that night have been without Wilkins?

    Take away Wilkins and you have the same as any other night, no one saw anyone checking any children from the group.In fact no one saw anything at all...except the Smith family who saw they would later find out, Madeleine in bare feet wearing pink pyjamas, being abducted. Was that the plan???

    Did McCann really say that BLOODY WILKINS?...I am sure he did...

  35. In October 2007, ‘The Times’ reported on the McCanns’ plans for a film or documentary about Madeleine, as follows: “Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns’ spokesman, would not speculate on whether Gerry and Kate would play themselves in any movie or whether their roles would be played by celebrity actors. He said: ‘While it may be hugely entertaining and a bit of fun to think of cast lists, we are a million miles away from that sort of thing’

  36. HI Iron,
    Good point about Wilkins. I would like to add the statment of his wife about GNR- She said that on the day after, GNR came to her flat looking for information and they show her a wrong picture of the girl. The picture was not from Madeleine. I always read that statment on the news with a pinch of lemon salt. She clearly wanted to highlight the incompetence of the police then anything else. The picture of Madeleine was at all TV channels, open all the News. GNR never made such mistake. She want's to protect the Mccann's. WHY? ( a smal question which could be very important). I think, the wilkins were part of the cover-up and I tend to tied them on the same pile as the Nannies.

  37. '...[Jane Tanner holds her arms out, bent at the elbows] Yeah, he was carrying sort of, across the body like that. Whereas I suppose in retro…hindsight, you’d probably think that somebody would carry them more against the shoulder....'


    I am leaving this link here for future use.

    May 2007...Neglect and the smashed shutter believed it seems by everyone.

  39. Hi Textusa and All, here is the First Ever Maddy Rose dedicated to you All Truth Seekers:

    Justice & Truth for Madeleine.


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.