HOAX 2 – The Fear

By IRONSIDE
   
Jeremy and Bridget both work in television, Jeremy producing documentaries and Bridget worked on Crime Watch.

Once again, in this police statement, we are reminded by the couple that they chose that particular week as it was the cheapest week of the season.

They flew to the resort on April 28th, 2007. Whilst on the plane they came into conversation with O’Brien and Oldfield. The reason, their children were of the same age and were playing together.

They were also aware of the presence of their partners, Jane Tanner and Rachael Manpilly.

For anyone who has flown on a ‘bucketshop’ flight, the planes are cramped, there is no leg room and the aisle is very narrow. BUT here we have children playing. Where were they playing? Was 8 month old Jeremy’s son crawling up and down the aisle? Maybe pushing the drink cart back and forth…

Flight attendants would be walking up and down with food and drinks. I’m sure the parents would have been told to keep their children under control apart from the fact they may hurt themselves.

I believe rather that the children may have been “used” just to justify how the couple got to know the Oldfields and O’Briens.

Not the first time in this story the children have been used to cover for the parents, and if they needed to lie about that, then a few questions need answer: where and when did they effectively meet and why this need to cover that up?

According to Jeremy, he first met Gerry at a tennis coach lesson held by staff associated with the Mark Warner resort on the first Monday of their holiday, April 30th.

He found Gerry to be amicable and willing to chat. He paired with Gerry for part of the lesson and described him as ‘Good company if not a little gregarious’.

He did not see Gerry again until Tuesday May 1st. This, you will remember was the night Mrs. Fenn stated that she heard a child screaming “Daddy, daddy” from the McCanns apartment.  

Jeremy, during another tennis lesson met some of the group and only then did he realize that the people he met on the plane were Gerry’s friends.  

Jeremy recalled also this same day walking to the Crèche with Gerry around 12.30 hrs because Madeleine had spent the morning there. Jeremy does not mention if he saw Madeleine.

Jeremy seemed eager, in his statement, to explain the Crèche and how it functioned. The evening Crèche seemed more important to him than the daytime. Jeremy said the children would be left with staff and most would be picked up before 10pm.  

Notice the time, 10 pm.

IT WAS NOT an unusual sight to see people walking at night with children in their arms asleep.

The Crèche would also supply a blanket to cover the child if required. Wilkins noticed the group appeared to be boisterous when in the Tapas with Gerry playing centre stage ‘Almost holding Court’.

They also noticed the behaviour of David Payne, he seemed to be ‘playing up’ to Gerry. Maybe this game of theirs is what ended the friendship between the McCanns and the Gaspars.  

Jeremy and Bridget back up the McCann’s version of leaving the children alone and doing regular checks. It’s quite a coincidence that on the evening before the abduction they decided to talk to two couples who arrived 45 minutes after them and by coincidence sat next to them, and by coincidence again happened to be the McCanns and the O’Briens.

And who could have guessed that on that night when chatting about everyday things the subject would turn to childcare and then to, by coincidence certainly, checking children systems? Which, they, the Wilkins did not use. Life is made of coincidences, we all know.

It’s just a coincidence that there were so many coincidences that night, as Textusa would say.

But as many coincidences happened that night, they were too few compared with happened the night after, as we all know so well.

We then come to May 3rd 2007. Jeremy went to play tennis at 10.30 hrs, Gerry was there, they chatted, also present was a female member of the group but apparently could not recall her name.

After tennis they all went to the pool. Who is all? Jeremy, Gerry and the woman without a name? By this time Jeremy states BOTH Gerry and Kate were now present and spent time talking with the female tennis coach.

A little confusing here and I am surprised Jeremy was not asked to clarify, was Kate already at the pool?

At 12.30 hrs Jeremy and Bridget went to collect their children from the Crèche. They did not see the group anymore that day.

That evening, their son of eight months was unable to sleep, about 20.15 hrs Jeremy took him in the pushchair for a walk. Jeremy, walking on the right side of the road passing the Tapas Bar on his left. The street lighting was not good but clear enough to see. As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate.

At this time they stood with Gerry’s back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.

Jeremy is adamant he neither saw nor heard anyone. The conversation lasted at most about three minutes. Gerry was chatty, his normal self.

The couple woke with a knock at the door around 01.00 hrs. On answering they spoke with the resort manager and a member of the group known as Matthew. It was then they heard Madeleine was missing.

Several weeks later, Jeremy received calls from Gerry, he wanted permission to use his name in a Portfolio of evidence being compiled by the McCanns.

They were very persistent and made several attempts to contact him both at work and at home. They had no objection to being included but were concerned as to the method being used.

 So, there we have it, word for word Jeremy Wilkins' statement to the Leicestershire Constabulary.

Jeremy Wilkins no longer recalls seeing Tanner earlier, in her purple dress. Jeremy and Bridget no longer recall May 3rd watching children from their child’s Crèche playing tennis, including their own daughter ‘Madeleine must have been there, they were all pink and blonde’.

Bridget lied, the tennis lesson was NOT May 3rd.

Much explained as to why Bridget wrote her anxious article in The Guardian about her friend ‘Kate McCann’. Butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth, Katie.

The couple was being pressured by Gerry McCann. It was very important to Jeremy where he stood when talking to Gerry. VERY important, so he detailed it, very clearly near or in front of the gate.

It was also important to Jane Tanner so much so she burst into tears after being publicly contradicted as lightly as with "a natural" and expected "discrepancy".


BUT of no importance to Gerry McCann,  

Gerry would decide where his bit part actors were to stand and so should stand. After all this was HIS version of events.

The fact that HIS version prevailed is very telling of his dominance on what was told, or told to be said, happened that night by some.  

Jeremy also wanted to make it VERY clear there would be nothing strange in seeing a man with a sleeping child before 10.00 pm.  

Bridget feeling she had to explain in her article Jeremy had walked home the night of May 2nd with their sleeping son in his arms, wrapped in a blanket.

The couple must have known and realised something was dreadfully wrong.

And I truly believe Bridget was afraid. Afraid or not, one thing I do know, Jeremy Wilkins has a deep dislike for Gerry McCann.

As always many thanks to PAMALAM

The KEEPER of Souls

By “Volunteer Contributor”, Marilee (Florida)
   
Haleigh Cummings, Madeleine McCann and Keisha Abraham all have one thing in common, they are young missing children, presumed dead and all three claimed by their parents to have been abducted from their beds.

In all three cases, the families are suspects in their daughter’s disappearance.

You’ve shown how the psychopaths and their ability to, even after disaster has struck the very foundations of their lives, carry on as normal.

Here, in the States, some are beginning to notice how alike the Cummings and the McCann case have become.

The Cummings are a bunch of drug peddlers, the McCanns, respected Doctors.

But something has come to light, the Cummings even though their daughter had been’ abducted ‘carried on their daily lives of pushing drugs, the McCanns holidaying in the Algarve, did not let the ‘disappearance’ of their daughter stop their fun, they continued to play tennis and jog.

Their behaviour to you or I may be weird, it is not normal, in fact, it is very abnormal. BUT not to the psychopath, this is a normal reaction and trait.

This brings me to Theodore Robert Cowell Bundy, maybe this name is unknown to you .  

Bundy, or ‘Ted’ as he liked to be called raped and murdered young students on campus, his youngest victim just 12 years of age.

We will never know the true figure of how many he slaughtered some say it could be as high as one hundred.

If you search ‘Wikipedia’ you will see a photograph of Bundy in Custody, the year, 1979, look at Bundy's face he is laughing, there is similar footage of Dr. Gerry(*) McCann, laughing, getting into a car moments after being made a suspect. Both men accused and BOTH men find it amusing.
   
Ted, like Gerry, both were very well liked.

Ted was a law student and Gerry a medic.

In the real world we believe that these kinds of people do not commit crimes, they are honest and law abiding.

BUT the psychopath can be our son, our father, our uncle, even our President.  

Ted Bundy was known as ‘Mr.Charm’ well respected and when first a suspect no one believed a word, this was the ‘All American Guy’, BUT inside, Bundy was a cold calculating killer.

There have been many discussions as to whether Bundy was a Psychopath or a Sociopath, the difference? Not much, they both have to be in control but the Sociopath feels his own suffering.

The day of Bundy’s execution he is said to have cried and prayed all day. The tears would of course have been for himself.

I’m not even suggesting Dr. McCann is a mass murderer. Not by a long, long shot, I want to make that very clear.

BUT Bundy and Dr. McCann apparently do have a LOT of traits in common. That can be observed. Bundy said even when he was arrested ‘They have no proof, there is no evidence to link me to these crimes’

Comments from friends and family, the cops were trying to set him up and the press were just ‘Sensational Journalism’ Ted Bundy wouldn’t hurt a fly.

Bundy, arrogant and in full control, aware he was under surveillance, washed his vehicle right under the noses of police, removing ALL evidence.  

Bundy followed the officer who was on to him and goaded him in the street, sound familiar?

Dr. Gerry McCann has said many times his daughter was abducted, what does Dr. McCann think has happened to his daughter if this were to be the case? ONLY a psychopath would make the comment ‘There is no evidence she has come to any serious harm’.

A normal father would be thinking the worst.

As Bundy said ‘They have no evidence’

But Dr. McCann, one day they found the evidence and Theodore was electrocuted in front of his victim’s families.

When asked if he had any last words, Bundy said' Tell my family I love them'.

Of course Bundy did not love anyone but himself.


(*) Marilee, it’s "Gerry", as in Gerald, and not "Jerry", so I took the liberty to correct all.

A Narcissist’s Reaction to Disaster

by volunteer contributor Anynomous (*)
 
When disaster knocks on a P/N’s door, first and foremost, whatever happened was NOT his fault.

Therefore, he shares no blame.

If the blame lies solely at his feet, then expect to be kicked and kicked hard.

And if it’s in your direction that he kicked the blame towards, to the outside world the P/N will be your savior, protecting you at all costs, but behind closed doors he will be trying to drive you to an ultimate sacrifice, a “social suicide”.

His reasoning is that he knows you are trapped in a situation of your own making.

Or that he’s manipulated into thinking that it’s of your own making.

But this driving is not for self-protection, but self-glorification. You, apparently are unable to avoid going down a spiral of self-destruction, although all his “efforts” to help you, but unable to as the external threat is too great.

It’s either your blame or the blame of others. He’s just a humble hero.

A P/Ns react backwards to everything you or I would do, they are like a mirror image.

Do not be surprised or shocked when the P/N exploits catastrophe in his life; and what he believes he can get away with.

To him you are not a person but an object and mean nothing to him, your mere existence is to be exploited.

Human feelings do not exist in his Universe. Any disaster that enters a P/Ns life illness, bankruptcy, even the death of a child means nothing; it is only something to be used for his or her aggrandizement.....

Understand this and you may understand the night May 3rd 2007.

   
(*) Intentionally misspelled. This contribution came in unidentified, so we decided to call him/her by a misspelling of the “anonymous”, so that you have an entity to which you can refer to, if you wish to do so, when referring to this post

D. Prousa's "Analyse des Vermisstenfalles Madeleine McCann"

in Hardlinemarxist
   
"Analyse des Vermisstenfalles Madeleine McCann" is written by German author and psychiatrist, Daniela Prousa.

It is essentially an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) of the McCann’s given accounts regarding the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine McCann.  

Prousa examined in detail how the McCann’s make sense of and perceive significant events in their lives, namely the events conceived on the evening of May 3rd 2007, the night Madeleine disappeared.

She obtained data from many written and visual expressions of the McCann’s, via their blog on their website, media statements and interviews and television appearances.

During her study she asked curious and critical questions of their accounts, actions and emotions – verbal and non-verbal – such as “What is this person trying to achieve here?” and “Is something leaking out here that wasn’t intended?”

Through her analysis, Prousa concluded that Madeleine McCann died because of an accidental fall off the sofa, either immediately after her parents left the apartment or shortly after Gerry McCann’s check at around 9.10pm.

Further, she believes that it was Kate McCann who initially found Madeleine and that Gerry came in later to support her in covering up the accidental death of their daughter.

In her book, Prousa refers to the opinions of criminal psychologist Dr. Christian Ludke. Ludke, who has regular contact with parents who have lost a child due to crime, warned early on in the McCann investigation the McCann’s behaviour was pointing towards them being involved.

During interview he explained that in his experience parents in such circumstances as being posited by the McCanns “are under massive shock, were helpless, were insecure, withdrawing themselves.” ”They have an inner struggle, blaming themselves for possibly not have looked enough after their child.”

Conversely, the McCanns “live completely different, often harmonic.” Already after a few days they went jogging, as if that was a normal thing to do, they always came together.” ”These parents took matters into their own hands instead of leaving matters in the hands of the police.

They distanced themselves from their two other children by going on a European tour, that to me is very strange.”

The interview with Ludke can be read on Madeleine McCann.org .  

Prousa also cites Dr Gonçalo Amaral. Amaral initially headed the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, he was removed from the case in September 2007.

His central thesis was not dissimilar to that of Prousa’s. He too considered the idea that Madeleine died because of an accident in apartment 5a and that her parents along with several others colluded to cover-up her death. Amaral also published a book, "Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira" (Translates, Maddie: The truth of the Lie).

The McCann’s along with their solicitor Isabel Duarte were successful in banning this book. "Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira", that can be read in English.

Whilst Prousa’s book prima facia appears to make for good reading, readers should be mindful that IPA is concerned with trying to understand what things are like from the point of view of another person, to take their side, to stand as far as possible (which is never completely possible) in the shoes of the chosen individual.

People often struggle to express what they are thinking and feeling, there may be any number of reasons why they do not wish to self-disclose, particularly in public. Thus, the researcher has to interpret the person’s mental and emotional state from what he/she says.

No matter how objective one tries to be, subjectivity remains a problem in IPA.

That said, I will certainly be amongst the first in the queue once Prousa’s book has been translated into English.

In the meantime I would welcome the thoughts and opinions of German readers. Analyse des Vermisstenfalles Madeleine McCann can be purchased from Amazon’s German web site.

Points of reference:
Anna Andress

Unterdenteppichgekehrt

Holiday

By "Volunteer Contributor" Paula Ardenois
 
Holidays are stressful at the best of times. If you are in a in a pathological relationship you are sitting on a timebomb.

Here in the States, over the Christmas period we find that there are more deaths, murders and domestic violence than in any other time of the year.

Why? Because everyone ‘insists’ they must have a good time. We must add to the equation the “isn’t perfect” of your family.

If you expect perfection from them over the holidays you are heading for disaster. People, when on holiday spend more money, sometimes which they possibly do not have.

They certainly drink more and maybe act worse than they do at home because ‘they MUST have a good time’ Summer holidays, like Christmas, are also known for domestic violence to occur; in a dysfunctional family all its malfunctions will be enhance and will arise in significant amount.

If you go in a group you may feel pressured to spend time with people ‘to get through the holiday’. To fit in the group, to be part of the tribe… have a blast, be a team player!

Not enough sleep, hangover from all the nights before may make you snappy with your partner and, of course, with your children.

What is supposed to be a ‘Fun time’ has become an extremely stressful “Have to have fun time”. This leads to loneliness. Loneliness, was Kate McCann feeling alone?

On the bus trip we saw a woman sitting with her three children, her husband sitting on the other side with a surly look on his face.  

Gerry McCann knew the plan ‘We must have a good time on this holiday’ but by Gerry’s very own words on what would be the family video of their holiday said ‘FUCK OFF’.

It seems, even if only unconsciously, Gerry had decided he was not for the effort of making this would to be “the best holiday ever”. Here, we witness, in his demonstration of wanting to strip away any joy that anybody else around him could have hoped for the holiday, all the symptoms of a pathological personality.

Had the camera homed in on Kate’s face after Gerry spoke these words we would have seen the smile replaced by a grimace as all her hopes faded for the "Best holiday ever". We all have seen this sometime or another whenever we’re present with a bully.

Psychological bullies outnumber physical ones by a large majority as we know.

In Kate’s diary, she has claimed to have written about her husband how she had to struggle with three children while he was out playing tennis and having a good time.

A pathological relationship never sleeps, even during the holidays. One does make an effort for a holiday to be the one to be remembered, with no arguments, with no fights just happiness for once. Just to be there happiness. And this “happiness” may even be achieved; however, the effort of making it happen is of an indescribable violence.

The final day, the day Madeleine disappeared, Kate said that Madeleine spoke the words ‘Mummy, I have had the best day ever’. In retrospect this could not be true, for something dreadful happened to Madeleine on May 3rd. so, we ask, why did Kate say words that are highly unlikely for a three year old to say?  

Kate is a manipulator and the public, her target. The words, her words, not Madeleine’s, were directed to her audience only to explain about how perfect holiday was as a holiday is supposed to be and how nothing could have gone wrong while she was looking after her daughter.

Madeleine’s last day just had to be so melodramatically perfect. It is clear now the McCanns were in financial trouble, the moment cash was available they paid two monthly payments on their home.

In England, if one is three months behind with payments one WILL lose one’s home... a lot of stress on one family with three small children... on a holiday in a foreign land.

It they may well seem that they have been living beyond their means, even if they chose the cheapest week of the year in PDL, apparently a ‘Special Offer’. The small and shabby apartment with a community pool was maybe all they could afford at the time, was not exactly befitting for a cardiologist and a GP.

The holiday was a disaster before it had begun, ‘pathology’ and the idea of happiness. Happiness that did not exist but was “developed” around this particular relationship by the lies that would later be told.

Happiness, as the McCanns now surely know, is not found outside but from within, the nightmare they now live in contains more bars than any cell. To live a nightmare while awake is the worst nightmare of all.  

Gerry McCann often talks about the ‘KEY’. What ‘Key’ is he talking about? If he wants help in finding the key why is he searching in all the wrong places? If he wants help then he must return to the ‘LOCK’ where this key belongs.

The McCanns will never be able to return to the lock where lie all the answers to Gerry’s ‘key’ because they now have something they did not have before Madeleine disappeared: solidarity.

Solidarity, solidarity in an objectiveless search to find something that they are not even looking for, diligently obstructing whoever does, resort to "legal violence" if need be, because that something is not supposed to be found as it wasn’t ever lost physically: Madeleine.

Only in a depressing unhappy environment can a pathological sick mind think he’s found true happiness. Now look again at his genuine smile.

Welcome Volunteer Posters

Metodo 2 has received through the "DO NOT PUBLISH" system a request from a reader asking if she could publish a post in our blog.

Out of the most censurable of vanities we've agreed.

We've even twisted our own arm, and conceded to the request.

 Other blogs have “Guest Authors”. An example we wish to follow, and which Textusa has been one, from time to time, in Joana’s Blog.

 But we've thought of taking this concept a just little step further and have two different types of “external” writers.  

"Guest writers", who we invite to have their writings published here, and through them, in a colective effort, enhance the quality of our Blog and help convey the message out there.  

"Voluntary contributors", readers who, identifying themselves with our Blog and its ideas, feel that they can make a valid contribution to it, that in the comments box might not be given the adequate relevance.

As an independent post, visibility is obviously greater, and the greater the visibility the wider the horizon it reaches.

This was the case of Paula Ardenois, whose post will be published next.

If like Paula, you wish to create and publish something for in ou Blog, please feel free to do so and write your post to the following mail: ti.metodo2@hotmail.com.

Do include any pictures and links that you think adequate, or, if you don’t know how to, just mention where to place them.

It's not the quality of the style that counts but the quality of the content. This Blog welcomes diversity.

One assumption: intelectual honesty.

One rule: respect.

Summer Recess

Public Misleading of Public, by McCanns

As I’ve said in an earlier post, there’s one precious source of information that the McCanns have so altruistically and gracefully granted humanity: the Channel’s 4 “The Cutting Edge” documentary.

It’s an all-round important document. For the McCanns, it’s their opportunity to show the world the result of their work analysing all the documentation on Maddie given to them in mid 2008.

For the world, it’s a palpable register of the McCann versions of events, in their very own words, without any censorship or external vilification.

The McCanns at the time stated that the idea behind the documentary was to enable possible witnesses to, through the images, to come forward after realizing that what they’ve might have seen on that night, or preceding and following days, could and would be of crucial importance in the safe return of their abducted daughter, little Madeleine Beth McCann, known to the world simply as Maddie.

To jolt somebody’s memory one thing is essential and that is the attention paid to detail. The smallest thing, even imperceptible to most, might just trigger in someone what could turn out to be the key to this abduction, and so help bring Maddie safely back home to the arms of her loving parents.

No effort in the replication of detail was then to be spared, and we can only assume it wasn’t. So each and every second of this documentary is to be desiccated and savored with redoubled attention, for it’s the fruit of the effort of dedicated people and loving parents and friends who ALL possessed not one but all four of the following characteristics:

- lived themselves some of the events,

- had privileged access to police file information,

- it was either their daughter or their friend that had been abducted, and whose life was now at stake and that the documentary could save,

- they were being victims of a worldwide campaign of unjustified vilification worldwide, so here was the opportunity to clarify everything and enable all the investigative efforts to be refocused on recovering the little girl.

Could anyone expect any more precision in the description of events than from these people? Obviously not.

Yes, Amaral did have privileged access to the information on police files, but did he live those terrible moments the Tapas did? No.

Was Maddie his daughter or acquaintance? No.

Was he being vilified worldwide? Well, he was from some bigots in UK who think the world revolves around their own belly, so the answer to this question is a no, with minor, really minor, exceptions.

What matters is that Channel’s 4 “The Cutting Edge” is what the McCann’s had to say DID happen that night.

This was the documentary that showed the world “The McCann Truth”.

As far as I can recollect (I do have the thing downloaded but don't have the patience to watch it entirely again, so I just use it go and pick the images I desire) three things were reconstructed.

I know I said before there were only two, but have since remembered that there's another:

First, a man watching an apartment and witnesses who described how they saw him looking at it.

Supposedly, this was the BIG breakthrough of the documentary. It's been more than a year, and nothing really came out of it. Really, really lame that I’d even forgotten that he existed. If memory serves me right, it was “Pimpleman” in the tabloids, but on the documentary appeared a darkish blonde Russian looking kind of individual. Ridiculous is the word that comes to mind.

Second, the Tanner sighting. Just one tiny figment of the whole highly complex algorithm generated to calculate the comings and goings of all those who were supposed to check on their children. And also on the McCann’s triplets, by the way an egotistical couple who, as far as we’ve been told; only checked on their own.

On this sighting, the documentary was quite detailed. All those involved that night, explained to the point of tears, as expected, what had happened.

Just one personal appointment about a detail mentioned. Considering to be a “discrepancy” which side of the road were two witnesses, in a stretch less than 100 yards, is not exactly the same as not agreeing as to which side the baby stroller was turned to, but it's more like saying that WWII took place mostly in South America instead of Europe, North Africa and the Far East. Not exactly a discrepancy, but rather a blatant contradiction.

And who won the argument? That was a night that Jane Tanner learned the true meaning of two words: friendship and reciprocity. And truth is sometimes really, really bitter. To the point of bringing tears to one’s eyes. What you give is not exactly what you receive back.

We will return to this Tanner sighting reconstruction. It reveals some very interesting and telling details, like the clothing of the abductor, as an example.

The third and last reconstruction, the one I find most interesting and revealing is the Smith's Sighting.

And what this post is about.

The first interesting fact about it is that, unlike in the Tanner reconstruction just before, there are no previous explanations whatsoever about the event itself.

Yes, we know that none of the present lived it themselves (although I do have a strong suspicion that that is not exactly the case), but one would expect to see that brilliant detective that goes by the grace of Edgar, explain, in loco, exactly where, exactly what and exactly how it had happened.

So that when we saw the reconstruction all would sink in, and, who knows, someone might just remember something.

After all, NINE people (well, in fact just SEVEN as two were little children) had seen this man carry a little girl, whilst in the Tanner sighting only ONE person did.

Why weren't any of the Smiths invited, you may ask, and I must then remind you that if they didn’t think the Smith’s presence was necessary there, it was because it wasn’t.

They did come prepared and with all well studied, remember? And do stop being irritatingly cocky with those silly questions. So we were told that "possibly", only "possibly", another family had seen the abductor, and the director just rolled the scene.

Let's then see what they've shown us. Here are 9 pictures, taken in sequence of the portrayed event:

Let's look at each one, and what each has to tell us.
  
McCann Picture #1 – The Smith family, all nicely bunched up together, come up the Rua da Escola Primária. On your left, as per green S on the left, we have a stairs.

In this particular picture it's not clear its exact location, but later you will see that it's on the near side of the lamppost shown. Notice in the background (yellow arrow), the small light that illuminates the top of the stairs that leads to Kelly’s Bar.
  
McCann Picture #2 – The Smith family continues to come up the Rua da Escola Primária, and is now nearer. The location of the stairs on the left is slightly clearer.

Notice how they remain together as a compact group. They are almost at the S at this point. Once again do pay attention to the visibility one has of the top of the stairs that leads to Kelly’s Bar. No sign of the possible abductor at this point.
 
McCann Picture #3 – The possible abductor makes his appearance on scene, coming down the well illuminated Rua da Escola Primária, near or at the Y-crossing with Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz.
 

McCann Picture #4 – The Smith family, still a compact group and still continuing to come up the Rua da Escola Primária, have now reached a garage door, on the right of the image, signaled with G. We know that the possible abductor is near, but has yet to appear on the screen before the family.

 
McCann Picture #5 - The possible abductor appears before the Smiths. Notice the relative positions. The family is either in front of garage G or has just passed it, and the possible abductor is well in front of them.

 
McCann Picture #6 – The possible abductor has now passed the Smith family.

He seems to be between the family and the garage G.

Various members of the family look in an ostensive manner at the possible abductor, as if the fact that a man passing with a child in his arms is something so noticeable that one has to turn one's head to confirm.

As far as we could see, there was no interaction whatsoever between the Smith family and the possible abductor.

By the speed with which he walked by the family, as well as the distance between him and them, there seems that there was no occasion or time to ask a “is she asleep?” or say any other similar phrase.

McCann Picture #7 – The possible abductor now appears alone, after passing the Smith family.

We can see that he hasn’t yet reached the garage G, so the crossing with the family definitely occurred well before this landmark.

 
McCann Picture #8 – The possible abductor continues down the Rua da Escola Primária.

In this picture we can see the exact location of the stairs S, on the other side of the street of garage G, slightly left of its door but in exact opposite of a street sign.

 
McCann Picture #9 – The possible abductor heads down Rua da Escola Primária, never to be seen again.

This, according to the McCanns, was the last time Maddie was to be seen alive. A touching picture that only a heart of stone, as Gerry so well puts it in another scene of the documentary, cannot feel moved.

On my part, I feel so touched by it that I’ll use it again as you’ll see.

Allow me to introduce, besides the stairs S and the garage G, yet another landmark: the window W.

From all this information, coming from the McCanns themselves, we can deduce that the Smith family crossed with the abductor somewhere in the area on the Rua da Escola Primária, just ahead of the Y-crossing with the Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz, as shown below:
 
The McCanns, I remind you, were handed over the police files in late July 2008 and then meticulously translated them, for a period of time that some say was more than reasonable.

They filmed this documentary in April/May 2009.

By this time I may concede that they may not have translated ALL of the files (I, as a parent of an abducted child, would have translated double the amount of documentation in less than a week, but that’s me), but it must be assumed that they documented themselves thoroughly and adequately on anything intended to be put on film before doing so.

Any excuse of changing events for reasons of lighting, better point of view, or other, reveals an unspeakable frivolity that could result, through reckless misleading, in the endangerment of Maddie’s life.

Let’s then see what the PJ files, that the McCanns translated and read, have to say about the Smith sighting. In pictures, so no translation is really required:

 
PJ Picture #1 – Clearly shows, by the letters P, M and A, the exact location where the man carrying a child was seen by the Smith family.
I’ve added the location, up-street, of the where "my" garage G and window W are approximately located.

 
PJ Picture #2 – Shows, from the opposite angle of the previous picture, the locations of P, M and A.

 Notice that the man carrying a little girl had to have passed "my" window W before he ever passed by any of the Smiths.

 
PJ Picture #3 – Shows the Rua das Escola Primária from the T-crossing with Rua 25 de Abril.

There can only be seen the P and M locations, as A is behind the photographer.

I’ve also put in, for reference, the "my" locations of the stairs S, garage G and window W.

This picture confirms something that I’ve already stated in the previous post, and that is that from where this photograph is taken, anybody standing in the Rua da Escola Primária beyond the Y-crossing with Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz, is not seen, or, most likely, will go unnoticed, so can trace back his/her steps without anyone knowing better.

This is quite clear in the two pictures above, which Himself has gracefully sent me and whom I thank.

The pictures are NOT from the McCann documentary, I believe them to be from the Amaral one’s, which explains the adequate position in which the child is carried as well as the absence of any of the Smith family up where the McCanns decided to put them.

I think I do have to redefine my Green, Yellow and Red areas on that particular post. After all, the “safety” area is much larger than said.

PJ Picture #4 – Shows the T-crossing between Rua das Escola Primária with Rua 25 de Abril.

Only the M and A locations are visible. No other relevant landmarks can be seen from here.

On the left, just not seen, the top of the stairs that lead to Kelly’s Bar. From these PJ pictures, we can clearly deduce that the Smith’s were broken up into three parties. In a previous post, I divided them as follows:

I could, for obvious reasons, not be correct in the number of people per party, but there’s no question whatsoever, due to the distances between the locations, that there were THREE different sets of people spread along from the top of the stairs the lead to Kelly’s Bar to well into the Rua da Escola Primária.

Logic dictates that this was the route of the man seen by the Smiths as per the PJ Files:

I have, up to now, limited myself to fact exposure.

On one hand, those that the McCanns, out of their own free will, decided to show us, and on the other, those that are in the PJ files, which we believe have resulted from the various statements of the different members of the Smith family.

And, believe it or not, they did not have anything read to them before so as to refresh their memory. Very few Countries have their police do that. Very, very few, but some do.

Now let’s look at the various existing discrepancies.

A perfectly natural occurring phenomenon, as per that enlightened mind that had the luck and privilege to have found permanent residence inside Edgar’s cranium.

In my opinion there are FOUR relevant differences. Of these, TWO are intentional and purposefully misleading, while the other TWO are much more symptomatic than relevant in terms of misconstruction.

Before I go into each, I hope you noticed that when writing about the sighting under the McCann’s umbrella, I called him “the possible abductor”, while when referring to him the PJ files, it was “the man carrying a little girl”.

As from now on, as we’re comparing both versions, so let me call him by what I think he really was: “The Stroller”

Small Misleading #1 – The Route

Per McCanns version, “The Stroller“ walks down the right hand side of the Rua da Escola Primária, while the PJ files show that he may have walked on its center, but when passing the P location, he did it walking on the left hand side of it:

There may have been a car parked on the right, we don’t know, but we know that he did go on the left, according to the PJ files.

On the McCann version, there is a car parked on the right, and yet, it’s on the right that he goes.

For me, the reason for this difference is quite simple, you walk on the right hand side of the street, the furthest from the light, if you intend to be furtive, but you place yourself under the light if you wish to be seen. Simple and clear, no pun intended.

Small Misleading #2 – The Carrying

As I’ve shown in previous posts, the McCann version shows the girl being carried in a manner different from the described by the Smith’s (a living sleeping/sedated child) or from what was described by Tanner (a dead child), although more approximate to the latter than to the first.

This, together with the fact that the girl was barefooted while "The Stroller" was wearing a warm jacket, and she was blond and wearing a pyjamas, links her, without any shadow of a doubt with the disappearance of Madeleine Beth McCann from Apartment 5A of the Ocean Club that same evening/night.

The reason for this misleading, as I’ve also said, was to try to give credit to Tanner’s sighting.

I had an aunt who had a farm, and there’s one thing she used to say that I treasure to this day, and that is “those who fear the rain most, are usually those that end up wet”. .

In trying too much to convey the idea that Jane was speaking truthfully (yes, Jane, we both know you were) they came up with the ONLY position in which the girl couldn’t be carried and… got “wet”.

If that isn’t fate, I don’t know what is.

Big Misleading #1 – The Smith Family

The McCanns show that they were bunched up together, as one single group going up the street.

The PJ files clear and adamantly deny this.

The reason they are put altogether is of minor importance, and once again, much more symptomatic than relevant: to show that there was just one single, quick contact between “The Stroller” and the Smith family, and not a repetitive and persistent one as the PJ files really show happened.

What makes this to be a BIG misleading fact is that it’s a BLATANT and INTENTIONAL distortion of information. It’s disrespecting DELIBERATELY any possibility of helping the supposedly abducted child.

No, it’s NOT attributable to mistranslation. Images are an universal language, and that is the language that we’re seeing here distorted. THAT is what makes this a very SERIOUS and ABSOLUTELY UNEQUIVOCAL and WILFULL misleading.

You ONLY intentionally and UNEQUIVOCALLY mislead when you wish to LIE. And here the McCanns are LYING about the fate of THEIR OWN DAUGHTER.

How more explicit can their guilt be?

Are they able to deny anything I’ve said so far? Let me give you some news that you already know, they won’t also be able to deny anything I have to say next.

Big Misleading #2 – The Location

What can one say? It’s just a 40/50 metre discrepancy, in the stretch of a street that is no more 80/90 metres.

Even the McCanns, finding it completely unable to justify the contact between “The Stroller” and the Smith family as “accidental” they had to pull the encounter further up the road, so as to make any sense out of it’s intended fortuitousness. How far up?

Let’s look at our McCann picture #9 again.

It was taken from the Y-crossing between Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz and Rua da Escola Primária, around about when one becomes perceptible to anyone at the T-crossing down at the Rua 25 de Abril, where the A and M locations are as per PJ photos #3 and #4: As the “possible abductor” is about to fade away, “the man carrying a little girl” hasn’t even begun to go past the first group of the Smith’s family.

Where one version has ended, the other hasn’t even begun:

So why fake it to where it was placed?

First of all, by placing the sighting where the McCanns allege it to have occurred, TWO of the possible escape routes are rendered completely useless.

Of the other TWO, the first would then clearly show what would seem to be a suspicious movement of hiding. The second, would just simply be too late to be used.

The possible abductor just HAD, according to this McCann fiction, to proceed and act as natural as possible, much like in the documentary.

It would then be defensible to justify the whole encounter as accidental. This would remain very arguable, as it implies that the “possible abductor” must have to have been hearing his iPod in the loudest possible volume, for he was unable to hear the noises made by a numerous family of NINE just up ahead.

But it would removes the entire absurdity of it, and THAT would be one huge positive step for the McCanns.

ANYWHERE else, THERE’S SIMPLY NO JUSTIFICATION for the encounter to have happened accidentally.

And if it didn’t happen accidentally, then it could ONLY have happened intentionally.

And the McCanns realized this at once. Let me explain. Let’s look, once again (I warned that I was going to use the picture many times…) at McCann picture #9:

You’ve simply got to love this picture, especially when it was handed out to you by the McCanns themselves.

The whole of the T-crossing between Rua da Escola Primária and Rua 25 de Abril is CLEARLY visible, as is the top of the stairs leading to Kelly’s Bar.

No, no extra lighting was used, as is demonstrated by the single shadow of the road sign on the right.

Having come down from where in the Rua da Escola Primária, from where the Smiths were unable to see him, but from where could certainly hear them, he arrives at the Y-crossing.

And this is what “The Stroller” sees before him:

Now answer this in conscience, you, seeing this street filled with people, with an abducted/dead child in your arms, what option, in panic or otherwise, would you take at that moment: go down Rua da Escola Primária, straight right into those people in front of you, or go instead into the well-lit and deserted Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on your immediate left?

It’s IMPRACTICABLE, UNREALISTIC, UNTHINKABLE, INCONCEIVABLE, OUT OF THE QUESTION, UNIMAGINABLE and HUMANLY INCREDIBLE for anyone with a dead/abducted child in their arms to opt to go down Rua the Escola Primária as “The Stoller” did.

In other words, one could almost say it would be IMPOSSIBLE to someone have done that.

Impossible? No, of course not.

First because “The Stroller” DID opt for THAT, and second, almost all is possible when you set your mind to it, and he had set his mind that he had to be seen.

And he was seen. Just exaggerated a little, otherwise he wouldn’t have given anyone enough time to ask “is she asleep?”

All just a momentary lapse of reason, as only Himself could so concisely express the whole thing correctly:

Mind you, “a momentary lapse of reason” ONLY on the deciding to go strolling about, NOT about this misleading.

The lapse was fruit of arrogance and misconception of reality, and that will be for a later date.

This misleading was conscious.

And criminal, as it clearly constitutes the perpetration obstruction of justice.

Independent of justice herself seeking to be obstructed, like we know she was looking to be, as the common slut she’s demonstrated she's nothing but.

Rua da Escola Primária - Elementary Information

The McCann case is full of self-evident facts that are simply screaming to deaf ears. And they are so many that if they were fleas we’d be scratching the skin off our body.

Take the photo above for example. I no longer remember where I found it, so I do apologise for not giving it the adequate credit.

The photo was taken at the top of the Rua da Escola Primária:

What does it tell us? First of all, when entering that particular street, coming from the Ocean Club, you’re unable to see its crossing with the Rua 25 de Abril, the general area where the Smith Sighting happened, in blue below:

 
Photo #1, depicts the area not seen from the top of the Rua da Escola Primária.  

Photo #2, has 3 areas, green, yellow and red.

When standing in the green area, you’re unable to see the Smiths, in the yellow, you might be able to see them, and in the red you certainly see them.

The inverse is not applicable, because they’re not paying any particular attention to who’s on the street at that time, whilst, you, on the other hand, have all you senses heightened, as you are supposedly carrying an abducted child.

No, not a dead one as I already have proved.

Photo #3, is just a representation of these 3 areas, without any other distracting information.

As I said, the supposed fact that you’re an abductor in full abduction mode, carrying the abductee on foot, you’re certainly paying attention to EVERYTHING.

When you know you doing something that you shouldn’t be doing, not only you pay FULL attention to all, as well as you exaggerate ALL you hear and see.

For example, some people that same night heard sirens that apparently nobody else heard. That doesn’t mean that the mentioned sirens didn’t exist, it means only that THESE people were paying particular attention to EVERYTHING they heard that night, while the remainder of the people in PDL that night simply didn’t pay any attention, so don't remember hearing anything.

This exceptional perception capability is commonly known as a guilty conscience.

So when you enter Rua da Escola Primária, with a guilty conscience and a child in your arms, you might not see the Smiths, but, I have no doubt WHATSOEVER about it, you hear them.

We’re talking about a group of 9 people, including teenagers. Lead by a woman that was feeling sick, walking slowly, with her caring husband by her side, so it’s hardly likely that the teenagers behind were being silent.

Oh, and they were Irish. Not wanting to stereotype any nationality, it’s a common agreed quality of the Irish to be talkative. So, when STILL in the green area, YOU KNOW that there are people ahead.

You don’t see them, but YOU KNOW that they are there.

FORTUNATELY you don’t see them; because that means that they can’t see you. So logic and common sense dictates that you take your guilty conscience and abducted child and backtrack your steps, before anyone sees you:
 
But no, against logic or common sense, you just gleefully proceed.

Past the green (1) area.

Past the yellow (2) area.

Past the red (3) area right INTO Smiths's "arms" as if transporting and abducted child was as natural to you as drinking orange juice in the morning.

What? Say you that the Rua da Escola Primária was the ONLY way you knew to get to the beach, where your boat/yacht was waiting for you? You and the abducted child. And your guilty conscience.

You understand that that would mean that you didn’t plan the whole thing adequately, don't you? That you, just on the whim of a moment, decided to abduct a child, and knew ONE and ONLY way from a random room you entered to your waiting boat/yacht. Or was it a hidroplane? Pretty absurd, right?

No, not talking just about the plane, but about the whole thing (sorry readers, but, as you know, these people are incapable of following the simplest logic, so EVERYTHING has to be explained to them, over and over...).

Ridiculous, but I’ll pamper you, once again. What is the second thing that the photo simply screams? This:

And this would mean this and please do see the Mockumentary to understand exactly what I mean:

Need I say more?

I don’t think so.

Our friend “The Stroller” walked voluntarily and deliberately towards the Smiths.

Why? I’m tired of saying it and you of reading it.

Good night.

The HOAX

By IRONSIDE
The stage was set for the play to begin; everyone knew their part and settled comfortably into their role. There was no time for a dry run, it was ‘ACTION’ when suddenly, onto the set strolled an extra not cast in the play.

In the movies, the director would shout ‘CUT’ and the actors would be able to do another take.

Shortly after 9 pm May 3rd, Jez Wilkins, the famous TV Director for his hoax show... had become a major player in the abduction of Madeleine McCann.

Later, newspaper headlines would scream ‘Madeleine and the Silent Witness’ the man who would clear the McCanns. When we look at the police statements, no one has come forward to say they saw any of the group walking around or near any apartments on any other night.  

Wilkins, did see Tanner May 3rd, but much earlier in the evening, he remembers she wore a purple dress and was standing outside her apartment. If Tanner saw Wilkins she has never said so. Tanner I believe did see Wilkins earlier; this would be the reason why she explained her mode of dress... cut off trousers and flip flops...  

Gerry McCann was ONLY seen the evening of May 3rd leaving OR returning to his apartment by someone who knew him. The young Irish girl also saw McCann and Wilkins talking together... no one has denied that this meeting did take place.

The problem for McCann is that this messed up his well thought out plan. The timing of Tanner seeing Wilkins, McCann and the abductor all at around 9.15 or 9.20 pm means if, as McCann claims, he had just checked his children and all was well the abduction took all of four minutes and while he and Jez were standing outside the apartment.

This of course is impossible, but McCann needed to explain why he was there to Jez, checking his children and telling him if he had not been with a group they would not have left the children alone, the seed was planted, the children alone left a window of opportunity for an abduction.  

Wilkins later had a knock on his door not to ask for help but to inform him McCanns child had been abducted.  

Tanner gave McCann an alibi by saying she saw him and the abductor at the same time. The Smith Sighting, if anyone later would think they recognized McCann, was now covered.

Now, let’s go back and re-set the stage. Removed from the play Wilkins, the extra, where does this leave us and what do we have? Nothing. Absolutely nothing, a night like any other, no one saw anything because there was nothing to see.

The plan would have been so simple, the McCanns would have returned to the apartment after dinner and drinks, (drinks paid for by credit cards that they claim not to have had.).... at a much later time, their usual 11.30 or 12.00 pm.

The simulated abduction planned to take place at just before 10.00 pm would leave more than ample time to play on “Neglect”.

Instead, we only have a window of four minutes at the most for the abductor to have entered, jemmied shutters, grabbed a sleeping Madeleine without disturbing the twins in their blanketless cots and make his get away.

Had things gone to plan, I believe we would not be sitting here at our keyboards trying to discover what really happened to Maddie. There would have been evidence of a forced entry and anger from the public at the amount of hours the children were left alone BUT leaving a huge opportunity for an ‘abductor’ to have taken a child.  

Wilkins foiled the plan and a new idea was whipped up, the tearing of a child's book to write on and fit a timeline, children checking, to match the meet with Wilkins.  

Bridget O’Donnell (BOD), the partner of Jez, what is her role in all of this ?
  
Paul Gordon, a witness, told police he was harassed by the newspapers and in turn Brian Kennedy and the McCanns about the Donation caller.  

BOD also talks of harassment by the media. The PR guru behind this pressure, none other than Clarence Mitchell.

If the Gordons were harassed by the McCanns I would imagine so were Jez and BOD.

December 14th 2007, BOD wrote an article for the Guardian. BOD either has a very bad memory, or she said things to mislead.

Tennis coach Georgina Jackson said Madeleine had a tennis lesson on Tuesday May 1st... BOD admits Madeleine and her daughter were in the same group as they had both practiced for a dance to be shown the following Friday... why then did Bridget say the tennis lesson was on Thursday morning, the day after Madeleine vanished?  

Bridget also claims they sat in the afternoon sun and laughed as Gerry practiced his tennis swing. Again Georgina in her witness statement said she had seen Jez and McCann talking but very few words... there does not appear to be this friendship Bridget would like us to believe.  

Bridget also tried to make the PJ look foolish by claiming they did not recognize a photograph of Madeleine, she was also very unpleasant about Robert Murat.

Bridget I believe was afraid and she says so herself, afraid Jez might be next in line for some imagined blame or accusation.  

Bridget also wanted to make it very clear ‘There were NO drug fuelled swingers on this holiday’.

I will leave the last words to Bridget. "So, my heart goes out to them, Gerry and Kate, the couple we remember from our Portuguese holiday. They had a beautiful daughter Madeleine who played and danced with ours at the Kiddie club."

Just a small footnote: Madeleine was in the Kiddie club with their daughter but their other child was much younger and with another group so highly unlikely that Maddie danced with both of Bridget’s children.