Self-Evident Fact: Sedation

I’ve said that the sedation of the little girl carried by “The Stroller” was so self-evident that it would take just one paragraph to prove.

But there are so many self-evident things in this case that people have apparently failed to notice that I’ll take a little more than a paragraph on this particular issue.

There are five and only five unanimously accepted facts in the whole McCann saga: first, the girl seen by the Smith family was carried by a man, second, she was barefooted, third, she was dressed in flimsy pyjamas, fourth, she offered no resistance, and fifth, she had her eyes closed, apparently sleeping.

All the remainder facts are subject to disagreement; and in most, with an argumentation as stubborn as baseless and bizarre, aimed only to contradict for contradiction’s sake the most basic and irrefutable logic.

But on this post the objective is to look for consensuality to its possible extent.

Defended by the McCann & friends, and by a few exceptions on this side, such as both myself and Ironside, is that the man carrying the girl was wearing a jacket and beige pants.

These facts are taken from Jane Tanner’s statements, and aren’t accepted by those who believe that she didn’t see anyone and that the body was carried away in a blue bag, right below the coppers’, in this case, the GNR, noses.

As you might have deduced by now, I’m a firm believer that the blue bag did not serve for that purpose, yes, it did a “now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t” kind of performance but that will be analyzed in an upcoming post.

Today, what matters to be used as a baseline, is that a girl was carried, without any resistance and in an evident, uncontested, state of unconsciousness, barefooted and dressed in flimsy pyjamas, by a man wearing a jacket, from Apartment 5A to the Rua da Escola Primária where both were seen by the Smith family.

What is not consensual in the paragraph above? First the girl; most say was Maddie, and I say it wasn’t. Then, there seems to be a disagreement about what was effectively her state of unconsciousness. The Black Hats say she was asleep, most White Hats say she was dead, and Metodo 2 say she was simply sedated.

Lastly, and least important detail, but has to be taken into account, is the distance the carrier carried the girl. If you think Tanner’s sighting was real AND that it was Maddie that was seen by the Smiths, then the distance is around 700 metres (route taken to go EAST, past Murat’s house and turning back WEST towards where the sighting occurred); and if you believe, like I do, that it wasn’t Maddie; then the distance becomes a mere 400 metres (having turned WEST immediately after leaving Apartment 5A).

Here is a picture of the McCanns taken, I believe on May 5th, two evenings after the fateful night:
 
I don’t remember of any sudden meteorological alterations happening at the time, so I’m assuming that the temperature outside when the picture was taken was very similar to those of the evening Maddie disappeared.

As you can see by their clothing, they don’t to require protection from significant cold, but did find the need for some long sleeved clothing due to the night chill.

I would say that the evening temperature for PDL on an early May evening would be around 10-12ºC (50-54ºF). Chilly. Not freezing cold, but uncomfortably chilly.

It was uncomfortable enough to the point of having called Tanner’s attention the lack of a blanket covering the child she says she saw carrying before her eyes.

We have one precious reference that we can always look upon whenever we need to see what EXACTLY the McCann’s version of those evening facts is: The Channel 4 “Cutting Edge” documentary.

This documentary, may I remind you, was filmed under the close direction of Gerry McCann himself, and had in PDL with him Oldfield’s and Tanner’s presence.

I also remind you that the stated objective of this film was made so that it could enable the jolting of the memory of any possible further witnesses. This documentary was filmed late April, beginning of May, I cannot be precise, but that is irrelevant, as the idea was to reconstruct what the McCanns thought adequate to be reconstructed, showing only the detail that the McCanns thought relevant, so that any further potential witness watching it would have the same reaction Mr. Smith had when he watched Gerry McCann come off the plane.

So it’s natural, expectable and essential the importance that was, as should have been, given to detail.

The documentary was quite disappointing, as of all that particular evening’s multitude of events, only two were reconstructed: the Tanner’s Sighting and the Smith’s Sighting.

All the rest was explained by the participants, only in terms of how they happened, without reenacting anything.

Many of the events went completely unexplained, but those, certainly the McCanns thought that they wouldn’t trigger anything off anyone. Useless... in their opinion, mind you, not mine.

If my memory doesn’t fail me, these people received the documentation late July 2008, and spent almost a year translating its content. That can only mean that when they chose these two particular events in April/May 2009, they thought them to be the most relevant ones, so documented themselves well, and were meticulous in their reproduction.

Otherwise, one has to think, what would be then the use? Publicity? Intentional misleading? If so, why? Let’s not be negative, and assume that they read all the tranlated documentation thouroughly, and when they headed for PDL with the cameras, they had ALL details right, at least for those two important events.

Let’s then start by seeing how McCann, Oldfield and Tanner appear dressed for the filming:
 
Well, it seems to be a quite, quite chilly evening, doesn’t it?

But then again, they’re not reproducing any event, so they’re entitled to be dressed in whatever they deem comfortable.

But let’s look now at the reenactment. Besides the fact that two witnesses, Wilkins and Tanner, having said that the Gerry/Jez meeting took place next to the sidewalk near the apartment, and the scene being filmed according to the sole testimony of another witness, McCann himself, what is relevant here is how warmly the actress portraying Jane Tanner is dressed:
 
As well as of the supposed abductor:
 
And of the Smith family:

Sleep usually begins when the rate of temperature change and body heat loss is maximal.

The average adult’s lowest temperature is at about 5 AM, or two hours before waking time. Human beings are endotherms - able to thermoregulate - , that is, maintain their body temperature.

Body temperature is regulated through a balance of heat absorption, production and loss. When we’re sleeping, we tend to compensate the lack of heat absorption and production by lowering down the body temperature.

That’s why we need blankets to sleep peacefully, and that’s why even room temperature feels so cold during the night.

When we're cold, we wake up.

There can ONLY be three reasons to justify the girl’s state of unconsciousness: sleep, sedation or death.

She certainly was not asleep. Do I really have to explain why? It’s IMPOSSIBLE for a child, barefooted and flimsy dressed, not to wake up when been carried by a total stranger for 700 metres (McCann version) in a night chill.

And on waking up  as she HAD to, upon finding herself in the arms of an absolute stranger in the middle of the night, and in the middle of nowhere familiar, it’s IMPOSSIBLE not to have reacted.

That child, to be Maddie, according to the McCann version, HAD to be awake and frightened, NEVER ASLEEP.

 It’s also IMPOSSIBLE for a child, exposed feet and flimsy dressed, not to be wake if carried for 400 metres (my version) even by someone that she could be very familiar with, in a night chill.

That child, NOT Maddie, HAD, to be FULLY AWAKE and alert. The fact that the child was barefoot and flimsy dressed while being carried by a man wearing a warm jacket in the chillness of the night; RULES OUT ANY POSSIBILITY for that pair to be just “a” father carrying a daughter, however negligent that particular parent might happen to be.

Very importantly, it proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that she was forcibly unconscious.

There are ONLY two reasons that can explain this forced unconsciousness: sedation or death.

This is so, so self-evident that only the willful blind will not see it. It certainly doesn’t make me a brilliant person to point it out. Nor even reveals above-average intelligence. It’s a clear fact, it’s an obvious fact, and it’s a fact that to even pretend it’s not there you have to turn your head away with your eyes shut really hard.

And like this fact, there are so many others are as evident and yet remain unseen, as I’ll show you.

That is if the McCanns don’t confess meanwhile and save me the trouble.

I’ve already explained how death can be ruled out. We’re then left with the ONLY other alternative: SEDATION.

As I said, no parent would throw on himself a warm jacket and take outside his ill-dressed offspring into the night’s chill. If only there was only one jacket available, priority would go, so says nature, to the child.

 He wouldn’t do that, unless he had the intention of proving a point.

And what point would that be? Well, to prove the point that at that time, at that particular quaint little Portuguese village a man was seen out on the street carrying a little girl, albeit the chilly night, in an exact replica of Madeleine Beth McCann at the moment she was supposedly abducted: blond, barefooted, apparently sleeping and dressed in flimsy pyjamas.