Let’s revisit Gerry’s statement to PJ on May 10th, 2007:
"----- Pertaining to the routine, on Tuesday there was a slight change given that after lunch, at 13h30, he and KATE decided to take the three children to Paris da Luz, having gone on foot, taking only the twins in baby carriages. They all left by the main door due to the carriages, went around to the right, down the street of the supermarket and went to the beach along a road directly ahead.
----- They were at the beach for about 20 minutes, the deponent and MADELEINE having paddled in the water. During this time the weather changed with a cloudy sky and cold, they went to an esplanade of a cafe next to the beach, on the left, where they bought five ice-creams and two drinks. Asked, he said that at that place there was an individual playing Latin music on a guitar to whom he intended to give some coins, but having none at the time, he didn't. That the individual had a neglected and careless appearance, unshaven and somewhat shabby [raggedy]. He was Caucasian, 175cm tall, thin, 70 to 75kg in weight, dark, short hair, almost shaven-headed with grey sides, and not wearing glasses. Wearing a light brown-coloured 'kispo', with a hood at the back, and dark cotton trousers, not noticing the footwear. He said that he never behaved strangely, nor approached or looked at the children in an ostensible [deliberate/menacing] manner. On returning they left the children at their creches, as usual, the parents having gone to play tennis or went jogging."
The only FACT about a LIE is that it’s FICTION.
If it were fact then it would be the truth.
But when a liar lies, he does it for a reason.
No, I’m not quoting La Palice.
The first reason, THE obvious one, is to hide the truth.
But for that silence suffices. If you don’t say it, the other won’t know it. That simple; and that’s for that that secrets were invented.
But if you say a word, only one, you’re doing more than hiding the truth.
Sometimes, as we'll see, you don't have to speak, to lie. Also, you may speak only the truth and still lie.
For example, when all you say is true but you simply just don’t say it all. A half-truth is a lie because you’re hiding part of the reality, usually that which is unpleasant to you.
When you’re affected by this selective “forgetfulness” in telling something, you’re hiding THAT particular part of reality behind a mask of another, now fabricated “reality”, thus misleading the listener.
And MISLEADING is ALL that lying is about.
It allows the LIAR, by own initiative, to escape either the accountability of his actions or the misery of his reality.
This escape is his ulterior objective.
Have this in mind when analyzing a lie.
It’s easier to catch a LIAR than it is to catch a limping man, so say the Portuguese, but sometimes we fail to understand the why.
And many other lies escape from our detection this way. So lying is much more than just hiding the truth, it’s making the other believe in something completely different in a manner such that, for the listener, it is truth.
The way he envisions it, or better yet, the way the LIAR made the listener envision it.
Why is this important?
Because then you can understand that a LIAR has ALWAYS a message to convey.
And that message is the EXACT image of events that he wants you to create in your mind. When someone has to control something then a continuous confirmation of the intended effect is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.
Basically, if you don’t follow the story adequately you’ll miss the punchline altogether.
If you don’t follow the script, you’re being an actor in another play… so the LIAR must assure that the listener is following it correctly.
The only way a LIAR can do that is to feed you with what he thinks to be the adequate and relevant details that will enable you to construct the intended image.
This is where fiction comes in.
The process by which the liar attempts in making you create, in your mind, THE exact, not A, copy of something that he’s just created, but is non-existent, but in the mind of the LIAR.
For the LIAR there’s always the risk of misconstruction, as a result of the listener NOT capturing either the adequate details or the details adequately.
The details MUST get got right. No buts or ifs. They HAVE to be right.
How does he go about that?
He rams them down your throat, that’s how. Not a very subtle procedure, but an effective one.
That’s why “The Stroller” walked those extra yards to make sure he was seen by the Smiths. If he had turned on the FIRST or SECOND opportunities that he had (the expected and wise behavior if he was doing what he pretending to do) the family could have missed him altogether.
Then there would be nobody to then report having seen “The Abductor”, and the stroll would then become just an useless exercise.
And also why he also didn’t turn on his THIRD opportunity because in his mind he needed to feed in that extra detail that the family might not have captured adequately: the direction to where he wanted them to believe that he was heading to.
That’s why he forced the contact the way he did.
He was ramming the details down the Smith’s collective throats.
Here you have a perfect example of someone lying without saying a word, just misleading by action.
And for the same reason that “The Stroller” lied, so did Gerry McCann about the beach trip. He needed to ram down "a detail" down our collective throats.
He had to create a menacing character as well as the moment this evil man took the decision to abduct his daughter.
In his mind he simply couldn’t risk that the Portuguese cops to be intelligent enough to create that scenario just out of the Kid’s Club beach trips.
By the way, they did look into that scenario, proved by the photographing the "creche path", as per PJ files.
No, he had to be SURE the investigators got someone that although “never behaved strangely, nor approached or looked at the children in an ostensible [deliberate/menacing] manner”, he did have “a neglected and careless appearance, unshaven and somewhat shabby [raggedy]”.
After hearing these words, do you or don’t you feel that that man is a suspect to be investigated?
You do. I do. The “never” is a technique that I call confirmation by denial.
By the exagerated emphasis of the opposite, a seed of suspicion is planted, which is then watered by the description of expected details that fit like a glove to whomever you wish to incriminate.
Very much used by children, and why they're catched lying so easily.
When you exagerate, well... you exagerate.
In the case of the McCanns, it worked so well that the man who "never", is not still a suspect as, I do believe, there’s, three years past, recent footage of the man.
And some say they’ve filmed ghosts… For this footage to be news, reveals how much cooperative the news are to these things, when they want to be… and this is very important to understand the whole story.
But I'll get to that later. Not on this post. Later...
Gerry, for example, didn’t point out whoever sold them the ice-creams, did he?
Whoever she/he was, also never behaved strangely, nor approached or looked at the children in an ostensible [deliberate/menacing] manner. Yet, he/she wasn’t mentioned.
And that is all that this TALE about a beach trip is about: to plant a seed in the police’s mind of fictitious suspect.
Where? On the beach.
So, so near the sea. And he would become so familiar to the beach, right? And, in case he decided to abduct a child, say Maddie, wouldn't THAT be just the right place he'd… ups, sorry, forgot he doesn’t exist.
The Abductor, doesn’t exist, that is.
“The Stroller” who also headed, possibly, to the beach, is very, very real.
His other possible destination, the Church.
Remember, this statement is given on May 10th, and the Smiths still hadn’t given any sign of life.
One has to find alternative plans. That’s why Gerry McCann miraculously remembers this exceptional episode that he so naturally overlooked to have mentioned in his first statement whilst describing the family’s routines…
You can’t say it all the first time, can you?
And, where else, in PdL, could someone see Maddie close enough to want her, but the beach?
Later, they would put people on the street (my personal favorite, Pimpleman, for example), which only months after the people who saw them thought relevant, but at this time imagination thought that the beach would be ideally suited and suffice for a "pedo-on-the-prowl"...
Remember, the PdL Red Zone was totally out-of-bounds as we now know why.
So there HAD to be a beach trip but the route COULDN'T possibly pass nearby the Church, set deep in the PdL Red Zone.
But as we know, it simply didn’t pass anywhere.
Much less by "the road directly ahead".
The abovementioned statement is nothing but an infantile attempt from our good psychopathic egocentric doctor to convince the entire world that there was abduction.
And the entire world believed him for a while...
There was no beach trip.
He never saw Bogeyman, which we all know doesn’t exist, much less in broad daylight.
Which means that there was no ice-cream for the children.
Now, that is, literally, taking candy from babies. Unacceptable.