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.