My Thoughts & Questions

By Volunteer Contributor Quite Intrigued
 
1. - This was not a holiday, G swearing on the bus, K's premonition beforehand. It was a planned event but also something unexpected happened to interfere with it.

2. - This group did not know each other well so CM comment 'they were so into each other' is crap. By their own account, the only time they spent together was at dinner, no-one had even been in 5A apart from McCs, and DP on the 3rd.

3. - The children didn't allow them freedom to pursue what they were there for hence the need for a crèche (a maid babysitting in a villa would have made a good witness if the adults all went out together during the day so maybe a reason not to have a villa) BUT if they were avoiding their activities being monitored before they went away then a plan was in place in the UK. What records are there of the adults activities while the children were in the crèche apart from the purported sailing trip and the hint of McCs going to Sagres.... that would mean a hire car?

4. - They didn't produce bank or credit card statements because their purchases would not show the trip was paid for by someone else. Not producing them does not indicate they are hiding what they DID buy but what they DIDN'T. Did one of the group have control of a 'company' card which paid for everyone and the reason they ate and drank together in a bar?

5. - The adults were not familiar with the others children, therefore they didn't spend time together before or during the 'holiday'. They didn't have a checking rota for one person to visit all children which would be more normal for a group of friends. (Not that I'm sure they did any checking at all)

6. - I haven't looked at the swinging aspect so cannot comment on that but wondered whether they were all at a conference/meetings of some sort (BIVDA or Freeport)

7. - The mother stayed at the table when K sounded the alarm because she wanted to keep out of the game

8. - GM wanted someone to come forward to see a child being carried (I think maybe a decoy child)

9. - JT wasn't able to adapt her planned part when things went slightly wrong,

10. - I believe DP had a major role, maybe the cause of M's death. But why are his statements being allowed to go unchallenged as they are the most crucial? First he states he last saw M at 5pm in the apartment with both parents then later he says he was at the courts when G told him to go and look in on K at 6ish. He says she had bathed the kids because he describes how they looked. 3 minutes and 30 minutes, huge difference.

11. - RM, who looks similar to DP, is then implicated when there was a news article that he could be called as a witness - which has since disappeared. What has DP got on the others they daren't speak? Was the Lolita photo produced as a warning to someone?

12. - RM was involved in some way, maybe one of his agents gave a 'key' to someone to 'view' one of his properties. A body could have been stored in an empty apartment and if there was only 1 or 2 'keys' no-one else could get in until they were returned. If there were 2 then RM might have held one so implicated by chance if not knowingly. Why was the property in Burgau searched and what is the significance of the kinship DNA found there of JT and RM? They both also had connections to the town in the UK where she lives.

13. - YM knew DP and he knew her, was it a coincidence she was there at the time?

14. - I don't believe M fell off the sofa (if at all) at 9 but wonder why GA gave this misinformation, what would he gain by it? Maybe to trap someone into contradicting him and highlighting she was dead. He has a good reason known to himself and some others in the know. GA also pushes she was definitely last seen at 5.30 and I feel he is giving this as misinformation too. Was she really in the crèche 3rd May afternoon?

15. - There are far too many coincidences even down to the owner of 5A being called McCann

16. - Did the McCs play tennis at home as K's activities in the UK were stated as going to the gym and taking the kids swimming although she was obviously a runner. G only mentions golf and cycling. Did any of the others normally play tennis? If so why would they need a tennis coach in PdL or why would they be playing with SC who was not so fit? It seems the group had to stay on site to amuse themselves at OC or close to it and if so there was a reason. Waiting to be called to something? The sea at PdL is freezing April/May (I know, I tried it on my visits in April/May-and I swim in the sea in England) so why did the person who fell in the water while sailing not mention this.....did anyone REALLY go sailing or did they go off to a meeting?

17. - K's parents and G's family know the truth.

18. - M had a condition, Turner's, Kabuki or something else. K's description of M struggling to do things like riding her bike supports this. Her short fingers visible in the football top photo. Was it a life limiting condition? Therefore no medical records produced. Were those bruises on her face in the Lolita photos? Some illnesses cause bruising not just phyisical abuse. She looks lifeless in that photo and when you put it into another format she actually looks dead. I don't know whether she was physically abused.

19. - Who was the 'aunt' who was going to 'adopt' M? She must have been a very difficult child

20. - Too many throw away remarks, JT's clothing, the bead in M's hair, M and S crying the previous night ....as for giving her tuppence worth, that sounds like a fond memory of a dead child.

As for all the contradictions.....far too numerous to mention!

The Importance of the Nonexistent Witness

As you know, I’ve pointed David Payne as the probable person that killed Maddie McCann. I believe by accident, and I don't think it had anything to do with child abuse.

I know many disagree with me on all statements, but I'm also aware that through patience, methodology and resilience, this blog has helped to diminish that number.

Initially, this for me was just a case of a British couple, by chance doctors and rather attractive, whose daughter had accidentally died, and that went then on a lying rampage to hide the fact.

As simple as that. They weren’t the first, wouldn’t be the last.

On those first days I followed the issue as the rest of us: spoonfed by the media. Not even after the McCanns became arguidos, did my mind change a bit.

They had staged the abduction, and now the Police had caught up.

But the day I read Amaral’s book, and as soon as I turned to, like a child, the pictures pages, I immediately understood that we were in the presence of something of a magnitude few would or could understand.

You see, when I envisioned the whole mock up, I thought, honestly, that they‘d at least given an honest try to make the abduction scenario minimally credible.

One look pictures of the room and of the infamous shutters, it was clear that they didn’t even make THAT effort.

But this post is not about that. It’s about, as the title says, an nonexistent person. One very, very important person in this entire story.

The first detail that pointed me into David Payne's direction was exactly the path taken by this gentleman when worried about the well being of one of his friend’s wife, which, to this day, we’re yet to understand what ailed her and worried him so:
 
Making an effort to be benign with the man, after all he was being completely altruistic, I accepted, or better, made a conscious effort to accept, that he had gone into the Ocean Club all the way to the tennis court just to clarify, with the “sick” lady’s husband where she might be exactly at that moment in time.

Yes, I know that one could assume immediately that she was in the apartment, as if the husband was in the tennis courts, and the children weren’t at the crèche nor at the pool, the mother could only be where they were supposed to be: in the apartment.

But let’s us let him ask whoever he wishes to ask, shall we?

So now he goes back, out of the Ocean Club, up the street, up the stairs and… well, some (David Payne, to be exact) say he went in, while others (Kate McCann) say he didn’t, but all agree that Kate McCann came to meet David Payne wrapped only in a towel.

This is followed by another discrepancy and that is the one that one (Kate McCann) says they hardly talked while the other (David Payne) states that he not only talked for half an hour as he saw children that reminded him of angels.

Yes, our imagination does picture these heavenly entities in white, but pink is also an heavenly color after all, isn’t it?

But we all agree, including both these two individuals, that when, and why, David Payne decides to leave the Apartment 5A he’s standing at, or very near the patio door.

He leaves, goes up the street and around the parking lot, down a few steps, around the corner and up to his apartment. This is consensual.

And this is where our nonexistent witness makes its appearance.
 
You see, why on earth would David Payne walk out of that apartment via the RED Route, when he had a much, much shorter one, the BLUE, to go to his house?

After all he was intimate enough with the lady in question, and I’m not saying, at this point, sexually, but to the point of being FRANKLY worried about her well being (one day, maybe we'll all know what may befall upon a healthy jogger to go FRANKLY out of his way to check up on her, so, NATURALLY, he would be familiar enough to just ask, or not even that, “may I just pass through?”, and leave via the front door, the nearest and most comfortable way to reach his own apartment.

No, he had to go the long way.

Odd behaviour, isn’t it?

But what does it tell us? A lot.

Firstly, that he left the apartment not thinking rationally, probably because something had happened that had made him leave in haste.

The same haste could have made him head for the front door of the apartment, but, unfortunately for him, it didn’t, most likely because it was the nearest apartment's exit to the mishap's location.

Secondly, the fact that he tells it, is very revealing.

Nobody needs to know that he had been there.

Besides the statements made by him and Kate, nobody else saw this visit.

So, if I’m right in stating that David Payne was the one that killed Maddie, and having the cooperation of the victims parents (more precisely that of the ONLY other witness to the mishap), it would be to his FULL advantage to simply hide this fact.

We know know many other "visits" happened that same evening/night between these people, and none are reported.

As is understandable. Not right, but understandable. Yet they BOTH decide to spill the beans about this particular visit.

Why?

Because, and this is what is important, he could have been seen exiting the apartment.

He could have been seen, before that, going into the Ocean Club.

He could have been seen, after leaving the apartment, walking around the parking lot before heading home.

We never know who’s watching us, and someone could have been looking. Not on purpose, just looking.

In this case, apparently, nobody saw the gentleman. But someone could have. A someone that could but didn't which I call as "the nonexistent witness".

That someone doesn't exist, but could've, so is very real.

Ask the McCanns.

I’ve heard that some 11/12 year old girl, smoking a cigarette saw Gerry and Jez talking. I honestly do not know if this girl is real or not and, honestly I couldn’t care less.

But what is important about this real/ficticious girl, is that if she doesn’t exist, she could have. And if not this girl, someone enjoying a cigarette in window nearby... why not?  

Nonexistent witnesses, by the fact that they could have seen what would be very inconvenient to be seen or later very difficult to explain a possible denial or contradiction, FORCE liars into telling the truth.

Just in case...

So do go back and check out again why some people in this saga say what they say, and see if you can determine where and why they’re lying and where and why they’re not.

It’s a fascinating exercise, and quite a clarifying one. Can you now understand why Tanner’s description of the “Abductor” is a very precise and a very truthful one in terms of posture and attire?

Just a Couple of Things I Find Strange

by Volunteer Contributor Quite Intrigued.
 
I find the profile of the 'guests' of the Ocean Club very strange.

If they were 'so into each other' as Clarence Mitchell stated why the T9 didn’t group just rent a private villa?

That way they could have kept their private affairs private, if they were swingers.

It would have been far cheaper in total, for the 9, as a villa can be rented for less than £3000 and has maid service that would also babysit in the evenings.

This is from my experience of my visits to PdL when I stayed in a villa, and this was a LONG time ago when that particular villa was new.

The other people staying there at the same time are not the sort of people I, or anybody, would have thought would stay at a place like the OC as it looks like a very basic place.

The other thing I find very odd is Gerry McCann playing tennis when golf is his thing, surely going to the Algarve and not playing golf is bizarre?

Even a 'pilgrimage' to Vilamoura isn't something that any keen golfer would do? The numerous Algarve Golf Clubs, as far as I know, are prepared to rent golf clubs for very reasonable prices as it’s of their own interest to attract all possible golfers that, as on holiday, have much else to pack besides this.

This “lack” of golfing makes me think there was surely a reason they HAD to stay on site at the OC.

I haven't seen anyone else mention the golf thing apart from GM being a golfer.

I don't know why this case is so important to me, maybe it's because I hate injustice and have experienced the British legal system, which stinks at times."

Not Forsaken, Just NOT Farce-Taken… Again

I believe that the photos above represent one of the most difficult moments for the Vatican.

Informed by its Diplomatic Sevices that the "Maddie Abduction" was nothing but an Hoax, but pressured by a global enormous sympathy for the Rothley couple, the Pope was "forced" to be seen publicly “supporting” the plight of those that forced their presence before him.

He saved the face of the Vatican by receiving them outside, not inside like he would with any VIP, and for a very, very brief time.

Today, looking at the pictures, I think that when he blessed the Maddie picture, he prayed for her soul, and not, as was taken as at the time, for her speedy return home.

I would like to think that the visits this blog has received from the Vatican lately would have contributed to what I would like to have seen:
 

To Be Or Not To Be Even A Question

About the SMITH SIGHTING and the McSTROLLER, I’ve, just like Sitting Bull at Little Big Horn, methodically placed Custer and his men in their last stand position.

In this case, they are surrounded not by Indians, but by what logic and facts have shown us, and that I’ve only limited myself to relay to you.

They’ve just been caught up by all the traps setup by their own successive mistakes and lies.

Now having nothing to win but all to lose, they still put up a fight. I would expect no less.

Out of desperation, not heroism, and much less, as is obvious, of reason.

What are their last pieces of “ammo” on this issue? I seem to have picked up only two: the public knowledge of the sighting and the possible recognition of GERRY McCANN by others.

The first I honestly cannot see the logic, but I’ll make a real effort to understand, because only whatever you grasp can you contradict. I might even write something about it, once I comprehend it.

About recognition, the version only defended by “abduction-purists”, states that it couldn’t possibly be GERRY McCANN because that would be an enormous risk of being recognized when seen walking around with a child in the middle of PdL that he would be intelligent enough not to take.

Now, for argument’s sake only, and pretending to forget all I’ve written before, I can only see the following scenarios for that particular man being in that particular time and place.

(a) a father walking with a sleeping child from somewhere to somewhere else, a perfectly innocent scenario;

(b) the ABDUCTOR, carrying a sleeping MADDIE to somewhere undetermined;  

(c) GERRY McCANN, carrying a dead MADDIE to a “safe” hide-out, be it a sewer, the church or some "safe-house";  

(d) GERRY McCANN, carrying a sleeping child to be intentionally be seen so that later an abductor would be reported to have been seen.

This post is about proving if it was or was not GERRY McCANN just due to the fact that he wouldn’t run the risk of being recognized, so we can discard scenarios (a) and (b) because they simply DON’T involve GERRY McCANN.

By the way, in previous posts, I’ve PROVED that both these scenarios, (a) and (b) , are completely ludicrous, to use a familiar expression.

We’re left then with GERRY McCANN with either a dead or a sleeping child in his arms.

Let’s start with a dead MADDIE. This thesis in effect does portray a real risk for GERRY McCANN which I believe he wouldn’t run, for something could happen that would expose, not him, but the fact he was holding a CORPSE.

Yes, I believe that GERRY McCANN did carry MADDIE’S corpse that night, but to a much short distance, and not all the way to the Rua da Escola Primária.

No, he wouldn’t, HE COULDN’T, possibly risk THAT.

So, stating that that it wasn’t GERRY McCANN disposing the body because of risk, you’re, in my opinion, absolutely right.

However, you’re just reinforcing one certainty, and that is not that it wasn’t GERRY McCANN there and then, BUT, and that is very important, that there was NO CORPSE in that particular place and time.

Lastly is that GERRY McCANN supposedly WOULDN’T WALK around PdL with a sedated child for fear of recognition.

I ask you, from exactly who did he fear to be recognized by?

For all we know, and as I’ve said before, it appears that, of all the TAPAS 9, especially the McCANNS lived in a state of closure, like monks, inside the OCEAN CLUB. Tennis, then tennis, and tennis after that.

Inside the OCEAN CLUB.

Breakfast in the Apartment, créche, tennis, créche, TAPAS and bed. All inside the OCEAN CLUB. ONE, and ONLY ONE trip to the beach.

Some jogging, yes, but is that enough to fear recognition in a strange town in a strange country?

By whom, I ask again? It’s like me not going to TRAFALGAR SQUARE for fear of being recognized, just because I was there once or twice.

ALL who those that could recognize him, were, we’re told, having dinner with him, and the ONLY person that wasn’t with him at the table that could recognize him, DID so, on the street that night: JEZ WILKINS, his so “close” tennis buddy.

Who else? The waiters? You mean those that could only vaguely remember that the group were “8 or 9”? (I haven’t gone back to the files on this, so if the numbers are incorrect, I apologise, but the idea is the vagueness with which all described the number of the TAPAS at TAPAS).  

NAJOUA? Wasn’t she working at the time? If she wasn’t, was she really a risk? Let me tell you in advance, that no, she wasn’t, for I’ll PROVE, in another post, that she never sat at the TAPAS table that she has said she did.

Oh, but say you, YOU, Textusa, have said that he, GERRY McCANN DID KNOW very well the “PDL RED DISTRICT”, aka the "KELLY’S TRIANGLE", and could then be recognized by someone from there.

True. And not true.

I think I’ve answered this in some comment somewhere before. Let's not forget he holds the iniciative. He decides to do it, so he decides the terms by which he does it. He is in control of the situation. He knows he wants to be seen, so controls as much as is possible, how and where he’ll be seen.

He’ll act accordingly and provoke being seen just as a passer-by, as happened with the Smiths, although, in his anxiety to be seen, he exaggerated this contact, as we've seen.

You, come back and say, what if he literally bumped into one of his drinking buddies from CHAPLINS or KELLY’s? Now, that COULD happen and THAT would be a REAL risk, wouldn’t it?

No, it wouldn’t. Why would it? It would ONLY be a risk if he carrying a CORPSE, and we’ve covered that.

If he was carrying a sedated, apparently sleeping, child what risk is really there? None whatsoever.

And I’ll prove it by using JEZ WILKINS. Nobody has ever hinted, suggested or even thought that the child in the stroller that WILKINS walked around wasn’t his.

We have no reason to think otherwise. For the same reason, somebody bumping into GERRY McCANN with a blonde girl sleeping on his shoulder has no reason not to think that it isn’t MADDIE, even if it isn’t.

So if GERRY McCANN was stopped by anyone who happened to know him, and he couldn’t possibly avoid the contact, then the storyline would just simply have to changed into a GERRY McCANN, a caring father, walking his daughter around to help her fall asleep.

He has stated many times that he had no stroller like WILKINS and the child was even dressed in her pyjamas, to help confirm the version.

Later, after such a loving, caring, and PROUD father would have put his daughter to bed, an evil abductor who that had followed him… you get the picture.

Remember, the script was forcibly changed TWICE that night.

First, with the WILKINS encounter and second with KATE's premature alarm.

Please do NOT counter-argument that KATE gave the alarm at THAT time which would mean that he would be talking somewhere with somebody while his wife was crying ABDUCTION somewhere else. Besides going into fantasy world, KATE’s alarm was unplanned, and it was what messed everything up.

I do believe that there’s some description of a fuming mad GERRY McCANN seen soon after the referred alarm, and it was not because his daughter was abducted…

Anger, an odd behavior for someone that soon later would show to be so fragile by throwing himself on the ground, apparently in despair, not once but twice.

If anyone supposedly proved to have been angry that night, it was KATE, and so much so that she smashed the walls so hard that she had bruises the next day.

Anyway, a parent, any parent, knowing that his daughter has just disappeared does NOT react in anger, but in anguish, in desperate urgency to find her.

Anger only comes later, much later.

But we know that these particular parents have absolutely abnormal reactions to everything. From reporters to nappies. Everything. Fine, fine, you say, BUT isn’t it ridiculous for him to be walking around PdL, to be seen, knowing that the next day his face would be all over the papers, and could then be easily identified by whoever saw him?

THAT is the desperate question you’ve so dearly held to, hoping that it would get you off the hook.

Sorry, it doesn’t. First, he has no way of knowing the proportion the whole thing will take.

Yes, they’re bringing in the Press, but NO ONE could imagine then and there that it would become the worldwide phenomenon it became.

And even then, people’s attention was drawn to MADDIE’s face, not her parents.

Second, I ask you to remember who you saw yesterday. Say at 18:30, or at 11:45. Not so clear now is it?

Now continue the exercise by, at a place where you were at that time yesterday, imagining that a crime has happened that you WEREN’T AWARE OF HAVING HAPPENED.

Could you describe anyone that was there with precision, with the exception of those that are familiar to you?

No, you can’t. If you say you can, you’re lying.

You wouldn’t be able to point anyone out even if they were put in a line-up in front of you today. Mr SMITH, when he saw GERRY McCANN was far from knowing he was being a key witness to a crime.
 

Thirdly, as reality as proven, Mr. SMITH gives only 60% to 80% certainty that it was GERRY McCANN.

Perfectly natural, as per said above. He had seen his face, like all of us, a thousand times, but his memory was triggered by the way the child was carried, not by GERRY McCANN’s face.

That only came after his memory had been jolted.

So, if on May 4th, Mr. SMITH would have come forward, as expected, with the whole world so sympathetic with the McCANNs, he would only be able to give a vague description of GERRY McCANN, and NOBODY, would be able to link the two together.

Add to that a GERRY McCANN’s “iron-clad” alibi provided by other so many witnesses (not only his 8 "friends", who, three years past seem to so much apart) of him being seen dining with buddies, then, I have no doubt about it, you would have the whole wide world chasing one Caucasian 30-40 year old “average Joe” (so very similar to GERRY McCANN), that went night sailing with a four year-old.

And if, and I’m only supposing now, Mr. SMITH did come forward when he was supposed to, I’m sure Dr. GERRY McCANN would have to be present somewhere else, and Mr. SMITH would appear before the media besides such a sad KATE and her such so supportive friends…

So, I ask again, what risks were there to make GERRY McCANN to avoid walking around, fully intended on being seen with a barefooted blond four year old in pyjamas in his arms?

None whatsoever.

Once you understand THAT, then many other things will start to make sense.

You’ll understand why I believe that there’s a reason for O’BRIEN and TANNER to be the most active TAPAS friends that night.

You’ll understand why I believe that TANNER does see WILKINS and McCANN talking, but is not seen by either.

You’ll understand why I believe that TANNER does see the “abductor” EXACTLY the way (with just the difference of from where she sees) in which she describes.

You’ll understand why I believe that there’s a reason for the McCANNS to say that the bed where MADDIE slept was one that she never slept in.

You’ll understand why I believe that there’s a reason for the famous blue bag to have disappeared from sight that night.

You’ll understand why I believe that there’s a reason for TANNER saying she did not bring any jeans to this particular holiday.

You’ll understand why I believe that there’s a reason for two adults, KATE and GERRY McCANN to throw tantrums like children in a grocery store.

You’ll understand why I believe that there’s a reason for the twins to be in sheetless cots and not wake up that evening.

You’ll understand why I believe that there’s a reason for no other TAPAS child to wake up. Have you noticed this? Although all the commotion around the OCEAN CLUB, no other TAPAS child wakes up. Not one a single one. All of them have one peaceful, heavenly night.

Except one that didn’t make it into such late hours.

You’ll understand that why I believe that there’s a reason for so many other things.

And things ONLY make sense, when they make sense.

Rumours or Wishful Thinking?

I post this just as I’ve received it:  

Have you seen this on Chaos Raptors? 

They really believe in their own powers... what a bunch of PRATTS...  

"This week saw the Textusa blog closed down. To date no explanation has been made as to why this other popular hate site was removed. Rumours, for that’s all they are appear to suggest that the blogger concerned was told, in no uncertain terms that the material published was libellous. 

Anyone who actually visited the site would be more than aware that it started with libellous material and then went downhill fast into a void of criminality."

 

An Ode to a Fighter

As is known, IRONSIDE has one tough battle to fight, one that so many are fighting so bravely every single day.

In this fight, she’s been a General, leading troops, distributing hope and love so that others maintain their will to fight.

She even started a blog about the subject, triggered by the despair she felt from one of our readers, “Claudia”.

 But a General never ceases to be a footsoldier, and needs all to fight her own fight.

She’s asked me to stop writing in this blog. To stop being IRONSIDE

In the our fight to find the truth about Maddie, she has been one of our most valiant of soldiers and I am tremendously proud to have had her side-by-side in this blog.

Much, much more than a “side-kick”, she has been a full partner.

She’s scolded me so many times, that if I had any shame, I would still beet-red from embarrassment. many compliments directed to me, were her exclusive merit.

She’s a free spirit, and it's a known fact that NO ONE can tame or imprison one. One can only let it be free and enjoy the privilege of its company when it wants to be with us.

And when they spend more than a minute, its joy; an hour, happiness… now imagine what I’ve felt for having had her with me all this time.

I'm second only to her wonderful husband, who she so dearly loves and is loved by.

Metodo 2, will never end. I may write alone from now on, in a much slower pace, as I did before, but Metodo 2, was a relevant mark in finding the truth.

And many a future article of mine will be based solely on findings made by the two of us as the team I'm so proud to have been part of.

She knows she’s welcome to write here whenever she wants, but understandably needs a rest to gather up strength for thepersonal battle to which she knows I’ll provide all the help I can give and muster.

I leave you with her words of good-bye from blogging.

I withdrew them completely out of the context they were in, and, now alone, have gained a whole new meaning.

Like forgetting that roses have thorns and just focusing the attention on the beauty of their petals.

I hope that you’ll agree with me, in saying that the following is a passionate tribute to the time she spent blogging here:  

(…) TEXTUSA invited me to write on her blog. I cannot say how much I have enjoyed working on the blog of TEX especially when she was on holiday , she left it in my hands to write, write and then write some more. This I did with gusto, I think I wrote a new article everyday. I also had to find out for myself how to post a photograph, so proud when I realised how it was done. Textusa, in the beginning had around 40 readers a day but I found a way by posting TEXTUSA on twitter for us to have many more readers… (…) TEXTUSA has a healthy 300 reader stat a day. Many will be happy to know I am no longer poster IRONSIDE, one flea less out of the hair of the PRO’S to bad mouth. If you are one of the good guys, then God help us all. Many thanks for reading this and my best to you all. IRONSIDE

To see how important she is to the discovery of the Truth about Maddie, I’ve put together all those texts written by her, or by other’s she convinced to write here in OUR BLOG, in my trunk in the loft.

God bless you MY FRIEND, and all the beautiful friends you’ve been blessed with.

The Luck of the Irish

McCann told Tanner to mention this to PJ that night thinking the following day the witness would come forward on May 4th.

They did not and McCann waited and waited.

To the McCann’s desperation (and ignorance), they simply didn’t appear.

And the tide started to turn against them.

The Police started to look at the various blatant contradictions.

We now know that they did their best to distract the police by pointing the finger at Murat, who they knew, had played a part in that evening, and with some luck, some trace of Maddie would have been found linking him with to the “abducted” child.

But the Murat’s were too careful from moment one.

They understood the seriousness of the crime.

Murat got pointed out because the Smiths simply didn’t surface.

The tide continued to turn, stronger and stronger, against them.

They had to act. Desperate,

Gerry makes, in his blog, an appeal DIRECTLY and INEQUIVOCALY to the IRISH:

Day 37 June 9th 2007 After returning from the beach we did the Irish version of Crimewatch-‘Crimecall’. There are a lot of Irish tourists in and around Praia da Luz and although the awareness of Madeleine’s disappearance in Ireland is extremely high, we want to ensure that everyone is aware of the appeal and we want the Irish public to come forward with photographs of people who they do not know who were in and around Praia da Luz in the 2 weeks leading up to the 3rd May.

The address to upload photographs is: to www.madeleine.ceopupload.com.

We have also asked for people to contact their local police if they have seen a man matching the description of the suspect carrying a child seen around the time of Madeleine’s abduction.

He is 30-40 years, 1.70-1.80m (5’7”-11”), caucasian and was wearing a dark jacket, beige or mustard coloured trousers with dark shoes. No major news on the investigation front- we still believe it is just a single phone call away.

Why the IRISH? Is it a known fact that there are a “lot” of IRISH tourists in the Algarve?

How many IRISH witnesses have you read in the tabloids or heard being involved in the infamous numerous sightings?

The only IRISH tourists that we’ve ever heard up to now of are the Smiths.

They certainly DO NOT, by themselves, make up a 'lot'.

So, this DIRECT call to the IRISH will probably be explained, from the McCann Team as yet another of the inexplicable phenomenon that will certainly be studied in many fora in the future: The McCann Coincidence.

They just keep coming in non-stop.

On this day, an appeal to the IRISH can ONLY mean that Gerry McCann knows that a group of IRISH people have seen a man carrying a child in all similar to his "abducted" daughter.

And for him to know that, it can ONLY mean that he was the one seen with the child.

Murat by the May 14th was in the frame, but McCanns had here another bit of bad luck... Smith had seen, even if briefly, Murat before and confirmed it was not him with the child.

McCann continues to WAIT for the connection, he had done all he could to ask BEG even for THAT family to come forward.

As he says, ’IT IS JUST A SINGLE PHONE CALL AWAY’

Even, for argument’s sake, information had leaked out that the couple had come to the Police, which we have no reason for having happened, the fact is that they didn’t come out publicly.

And that was absolutely required for the McCann marketing machine. Martin Smith telephoned Leicester Police the evening of September 9th saying he recognized Gerry McCann... McCann would have been tipped off by his friendly bobby.
 
Note that ONLY from this date, is the Smith’s Sighting a liability against the McCanns.

From this moment on, it’s important not only not to give it importance but to fragilize it as much as possible. But only from this moment, not befroe.

What was an added value, suddenly has become cumbersome. VERY cumbersome.

LATER, Martin Smith said Brian Kennedy contacted him to be involved in some sort of photofit.

Martin Smith had to contact the MEDIA on several occasions because he said they kept misquoting him...

It seems the child was now wrapped in a BLANKET...

Martin Smith as we know from his statement has never mentioned a blanket.

Who was behind the media telling them to now say Mr.Smith saw a child wrapped in a blanket and why?

If he was confused about a blanket maybe he was also confused about recognizing Gerry McCann.

Unfortunately for Gerry, he was not. But as this blog has proved, it’s NOT only the fact that Mr. Smith recognized Gerry that proves he was the McStroller, but it is due to his statement that we can rule out all the other male members. Gerry McCann, is the McStroller.

McCann, far from stupid knew his word alone would not prove abduction.

I believe McCann walked through the street with Tanner’s sedated child dressed in Madeleine’s pyjamas.

We know they were Maddie’s thanks to her little sister, when Kate held them up she said promptly 'Maddie’s'. The pyjamas were one and the same.

Whatever Maddie died in, they were not THOSE pyjamas.

The Smiths flew back and made their statement in secret May 26th...this information was not released.

So, all those that think that the Smith Sighting was public from day one are wrong, it wasn’t, it only became public known in the following articles (1) (2), in the beginning of August 2007.

Then, and only then, did we all get to know that Martin Smith and his family had seen a man carrying a child.

Therefore, the only people that, between May and August 2007, knew that there was a person who had seen a child with bare feet in the pyjamas in the Rua da Escola Primária would have been the Smiths themselves, the IRISH and PORTUGUESE Polices and, obviously, the man who carried the child.

That man we now know to have been Gerry McCann.

If, for nothing else, his behaviors in those days prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that yes, it was him.

Gerry McCann could not figure out why, a group of nine people, together with all the publicity, just didn’t come forward...

It was supposed to be a slam dunk case.

A little girl had been abducted and he had made sure he had been seen carrying a barefooted, blonde little girl in pyjamas, and yet, albeit all the world coverage, THAT group of people simply didn’t surface.

What he didn’t know is that they had already, in effect, come forward, and made the statements that we now know, on May 26th.

Remember that at the time, ONLY the Smiths, PORTUGUESE and IRISH Polices and McStroller knew that.

Had JEZ WILKINS not come along when he did... and delayed slightly McCann, fate would probably determine that it wouldn’t be the Smith’s the crucial witnesses that night.

They could have been some local residents, or better yet, Brit tourists.

Someone, on the NEXT day, would have put two and two together and gone to PJ on the 4th.

And the McCanns would have had THEIR so much needed witness to the abduction...

All the remainder details would have been completely overlooked, and all attention drawn not as to why, but as to where she had been taken to.

Maritime traffic would have scrutinized, many an illegal ship would have found sailing just off the coast. The couple would return home as martyrs.

It is the bare feet of the child and the pyjamas that ARE EMPHASIZED at the time, and not the man carrying the child.

In the beginning we just had an egg with hair (Tanner's description was released THREE weeks later to JOG the Smith's memory), in order to match Jane’s statement to what would surely be to the one given by that family that Gerry knew he had been seen by.

Intermission

This blog was closed to the outside world for personal reasons, for some days.

 It will continue in the pursuit of the truth in regard to Maddie McCann’s death on May 3rd, 2007.