Christmas Break

It’s Christmas time.

Time for the blog to break. For us to pay full attention to our families and friends.

This year we propose that you look at last year’s Christmas. Your Christmas of 2012.

Not because of anything related to Maddie. Just see what you remember from this time last year.

See what you remember and compare each memory with the importance of what was important to you then.

You will see that it’s the little things that make things memorable and what was important then time has shown it was not.

How many important things then turned out to be not that important after all? Almost all.

Most important, how many important things then turned out to be memorable things? Almost none.

What has this to do with Maddie?

You will see soon.

Try and remember what you remember about what former British Prime-Ministers have left as memorable legacy.

A true legacy is one that immediately pops up in one’s mind. One that doesn't need to be searched.

Please don’t go on the internet, just recollect in your mind what was the legacy of your previous Prime-Ministers. We're assuming you don’t live in a country with a long-term “democratic” leader,

In the case of UK, we’re talking about Edward Heath, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

You remember their names but we want you to remember their legacy.

You don’t and that’s the point.  

All memorable names but forgettable deeds.

Even controversial and unquestionably historic figures are remembered by only one or two major issues. Margaret Thatcher is remembered mainly by her nickname, hairdo and firm speech and, internationally, by the Malvinas/Falkland crisis and, internally, for her stance with the Miners' strike.

And the rest? It will take you a minute or two to remember what each may have done memorable besides winning the election that got them that position. And Gordon Brown not even that.

With time, even those memorable things fade away. Especially the names. Only the really, really memorable things are permanently carved in the collective mind.

We’ll give an example. Everyone knows about the Lindbergh baby. It happened 81 years ago in 1932.

What happened in 1932 besides that? We don't expect you to remember anything.

If we didn’t just tell you it was in 1932, would you have remembered? No, you would remember the case and would put into a very vague “in the 20s or 30s” or even a vaguest “in the beginning of the 20th century.”

Wikipedia says “The kidnapping of Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr., the son of famous aviator Charles Lindbergh and Anne Morrow Lindbergh, was one of the most highly publicized crimes of the 20th century”.

And Wikipedia will one day say “The death of Madeleine Beth McCann, the daughter of the infamous couple Gerry McCann and Kate McCann was one of the most highly publicized crimes of the 21st century”.

And Maddie will be as memorable as the Lindbergh baby although with significant differences.

Maddie reached a higher audience as it became the first global crime in history.

Lindbergh baby had closure (the body was found two months later) and Maddie hasn’t. As we write (yes, we’re writing for future historians) it’s been 6 and a half years since it happened and an official conclusion, realistic or not, has yet to be reached.

In 1932 information wasn’t as easily available and as widespread. This means that all the information pertaining this case has been microscopically analysed by many, so the historian’s work will be to microscopically analyse conclusions about data rather than about data itself.

There was no clear or unclear political involvement in the Lindbergh case. In Maddie’s case it was evident and historians will unquestionably focus on this. 

Politicians and “civilians” alike, will forever be registered in this case, forever and ever linked to it.

People like Pamela Fenn, John Lowe, Derek Flack and many others will become historic names.

And because UK's highest level politicians were involved, this case will draw, in the future, much more historic interest that the Lindbergh baby case was ever able to.

Unquestionably, Gordon Brown is forever linked, very negatively, with the Maddie case. It will be his historic legacy.

Out of all the UK Prime-Ministers referred to, Margaret Thatcher (Falklands), Tony Blair (Iraq) and Gordon Brown (Maddie) will be those that will be remembered.

What differentiates David Cameron from all the names referred?

Unlike Edward Heath, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, David Cameron still has a word to say about his legacy.

While in office he has but the moment he leaves he doesn’t.

It’s still up to him if he wants his name linked positively or negatively to one of the most highly publicized crimes of the 21st century. 

What is not up to him is to decide is whether he will be linked to it as he will be.

It’s Christmas time. It’s been 947 days since the review was opened. That’s over 31 months.

We are 510 days from the next elections. 17 months. Less than year and a half.

That’s the time David Cameron has to make his mark.

Whether to go down in history side-by-side with Gordon Brown or as the Prime-Minister who “solved” Maddie’s case. Or at least as the one who set the way so that Scotland Yard could “solve” it

A merry Christmas to all our readers and their families.

May it be a period of deep and profound reflection, especially in the Cameron household and in all those in which useless resistance is still being offered.

What seems to be, today of enough importance to stop the real and material truth about Maddie from coming out is really of little historic importance and certainly won’t be understood historically.

History only remembers important things.

Does Size Matter?

 Does size matter?

In forensics you bet it does!

The size from where a sample originates will unquestionably facilitate the biological quest for desired results.

Up to now we have told you that stains 1 to 15, found in the Souh-East corner of the living-room of the apartment 5A, were tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye.

And because they were tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye you assumed that some samples returned no DNA and others did of very little use.

One aspect we haven’t dealt with yet is the numeric “size” involved.

What are the odds of having 15 stains all of them tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye in size?

What could possibly generate such a phenomenon?

No fluid splatters evenly.

It would be expected, statistically, that some would be bigger than others. That would mean that there could be some or many tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye stains but there would have to be some or many not so tiny, not so miniscule and not so invisible to the eye.

So even if we are before, as we believe we are and have substantiated the statement, blood, it’s very strange that it would splatter evenly in only  tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye stains 15 times.

But, apparently, there aren’t any not so tiny, not so miniscule and not so invisible to the eye.

Or are there?

Let’s first put the stains in descending order according to what amount of DNA information they were able to provide as explained in our DNA is… DNA post. We have divided the stains into Classes I to V:

Stains clearly with DNA (11 out of 15):

Class I - Incomplete (3 out of 15): stains 1, 4 and 9

Class II - Mixed (5 out of 15): stains 2, 5, 7, 10 and 12

Class III - Weak and incomplete, then mixed, low-level (3 out of 15): stains 3, 14 and 15

Stains with vestiges of DNA (2 out of 15)

Class IV - Too meagre (2 out of 15): stains 6 and 8

Stains with no vestiges of DNA (2 out of 15)

Class V - Unfruitful (2 out of 15): stains 11 and 13

Only Class I stains (stains 1, 4 and 9) were compared with the “286 Voluntary Database”, as per John Lowe:

“In accordance with the available records, the database is made up 286 voluntary samples, four of which were rejected. The voluntary DNA profiles were compared with the following samples:

286A/2007/CRL1A & B

286A/2007/CRL4A & B

286A/2007/CRL9A & B

286A/72007/CRL16A & B”

We remind our readers that stain 16 is out of our analysis scope for now.

This means that only 20% of the stains returned “decent quality” DNA. At least, decent enough to be comparable even if in all 3 cases it was said that it was “incomplete”.

Again, statistically, what are the odds for a collection of 15 stains to return such poor information?

Yet you have taken this to be realistic.

And why? Because, for you, those 15 stains were tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye.

Logic determines that if not tampered with the size of a stain is directly proportonal to the amount of matter to be analysed. The bigger the stain, the easier it will be to get useful DNA results.

What you haven't realised is that the idea those 15 stains were tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye was drilled into your brain time and time again until it became, for you, an unquestionable reality.

Well, it isn’t reality.

Let’s look at, for example, stain 3.

Stain 3 took us a while to detect where it was. As you can see in earlier posts we said that we didn’t know where it was.

But as we have been proving all along, when information is there, it’s only a question of time until it will be seen.

This is where stain 3 is:

And this is Stain 3:

Stain 3 is made up of 2 stains about 1 cm diameter each.

Not exactly tiny or miniscule.

That, in microscopic terms is not big but “planet-big”. The amount of organic matter present should allow everything to be determined that is able to be determined forensically.

If one cannot extract valid information from stains that size, then how can one extract anything from tiny, miniscule and invisible to the eye stains? And apparently enough information was obtained to be comparable from at least 3 of them.

John Lowe’s mail, on Sept 3 2007 (received by "Task Portugal" on Sept 4 2007), to Stuart Prior:

“An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.”

Sep 06 2007 Interim Report: 

“An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.”

June 2008 Final Report:

“286A/2007-CRL 3A & B Swabs collected from the floor of the apartment.

An incomplete and weak DNA result comprising only some unconfirmed DNA components was obtained from the cellular material present in the dry swab (3A). The attempt to obtain a result from any cellular material that may have been in the same area and present in the wet swab (3B) was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained. These samples were submitted for LCN tests.

An incomplete DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3A). The low-level DNA result showed very meagre information indicating more than one person. Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, for example. DNA profiles established through LCN are extremely sensitive; it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid. nor to determine how or when that DNA was transferred to that area.

A low-level DNA result was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3B). In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result.”

What in Sept 2007 was “an incomplete DNA result”, which would make it a Class I stain in our scale above, became, in June 2008, a “incomplete and weak DNA result comprising only some unconfirmed DNA components” and “the low-level DNA result showed very meagre information” pushing it down the scale into a mere Class III stain.

A “mere” Class III stain in which, may we remind you, FSS has stated very clearly, twice, that “all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann”.

So there were confirmed components in what was only comprised of “some unconfirmed DNA components”. Really weird.

We don’t know whether to ask why was it possible to match components from a Class III stain and not possible to do the same with the other 7 Class I and II stains (stain 9 was positively to CG)  or to ask why was it was possible to obtain ONLY “unconfirmed DNA components” from 2 stains of 1 cm diameter each?

We’ll ask both as the answer to both is the same.

The fundamental problem with stain 3 is not the fact that it's NOT tiny nor minuscule. The problem is that although not tiny or not minuscule, it is indeed invisible to the eye!

Only one reason for that: It was cleaned, it was made to be almost “transparent”

Unfortunately, or not, for the Black Hats, it was still there for the dogs to smell it, for the Portuguese forensic experts to collect from it and for FSS to determine that its confirmed DNA components belonged to Maddie.

But it’s not exactly the fact that it was cleaned in an inaccessible corner of the living room that called our attention to it.

What called our attention was the lack of DNA it contained.

The amount of biologial matter that can be seen that was still there should have been more than enough to return “healthy” DNA information. Apparently, it wasn't.

That particular area may have, and probably wasn't, been cleaned with a mop in between clients after the McCanns left.

Their inaccessible location suggests that these 2 stains would probably go unnoticed by the Ocean Club cleaning staff.

Even when one is not careless, when one mops one's floor at home there are always stains we miss. Especially in inaccessible corners.

The kind of cleaning done by OC Staff wouldn't have "erased" these stains and made them invisible and certainly not make them almost “DNAless”.

The fact that they didn't return any "proper" DNA means that it not only were they cleaned but it was a cleaning job done by experts. And experts who knew how to clean blood without leaving trace.

The DNA was removed from the stains and that’s why they returned so little information for such big amounts of biological matter.

And if one looks at 2 of the 3 Class I stains, stains 4 and 9, where the strongest DNA information was found of the 15 stains, when compared with the one obtained from stain 3, it is quite baffling the quality:

- Stain 4 is a smudge and yet it was possible to determine it was from a single source, a woman:

- Stain 9 is made up of  2 tiny, minuscule and invisible to the eye dots and yet it was possible to determine it came from a single source, a male:

A male different from the one of stain 1 and identified clearly as CG, a 2 yr old boy:

Amazing to say the least. Amazing how so much information was obtained from such scarce sources and amazing how from the two “enormous” blobs of stain 3, so little was.

But our amazement doesn’t end here.

Why only a “Mixed” result from stain 7 and  a “Too meagre” from stain 8? Both are bigger than 1 cm:
 

And one has to ask how was it possible for Class I stain 1 and Class II stains 2, 5, 10 and 12 have returned a better DNA result than the 2 big blobs from  Class III stain 3?

We take this opportunity to answer a question that has been put to us: if Maddie died around 18:30 and the GNR arrived at 22:47, how was it possible for the McCanns to arrange a specialised cleaning team on such a short notice?

The answer is simple: they didn’t.

They didn’t call anyone that night who wasn’t already in PdL and among the few people called no one was part of a specialised cleaning team.

On the night of 3rd there was no forensics.

Any forensics done in the days that followed was, on purpose, strictly concentrated on the bogus theory of abduction. The window and little else.

The only time the Portuguese authorities acted alone was on the night of the 3rd.

From then on, with the surprising appearance (not) of the British Ambassador, the PJ was, unwittingly, only allowed to play “cops” as long as they didn’t decide venture down some “serious” path.

Whenever happened they got their “ears clipped” and were “told” to get their attention back to the “game” and only the “abduction” game was allowed to be played. Remember how Mr Amaral was told he couldn't use Maddie's clothes?

This to say that the domestic cleaning that was done by the T9 was sufficient to avoid any attention to the compromising corner of the living room.

Most likely only common detergent was used that evening.

It would be interesting to see what Baptista Supermarket sold at around 19:30 of May 3rd. We bet that together with some Australian wine, some cleaning products were also sold.

The body was removed from where it lay near the window into the closet, the basic cleaning done and the clothes were changed.  Then they placed the soiled clothes together with all rags used in the tennis bag.

From then on all was focused on pushing the abduction theory forward.

Sedate the children, get Tanner’s daughter dressed in Maddie’s pyjamas, get the T7 (T9 minus Gerry and Jane) going to dinner (or just sit and be seen) at Tapas, have Gerry take Maddie’s body nearby (including the interruption by Jez and being Bundleman as seen by Tanner while inside 5A), have Gerry go back to 5A to pick up Tanner’s girl to go on the stroll with the objective of having a man seen carrying a blonde girl and have Tanner go back to the apartment where all sedated kids were.

Up to here, all went to plan.

Then Kate botched it all up with  her premature alarm that caught all by surprise and precipitated a series of mistakes that would give the whole game away.

So what was planned originally and left undone? Basically 3 things.

The first would have been to have made things look like the apartment was broken into through the window. To really jemmy the window.

The second would have been for Gerry to make a spectacle of himself at Tapas to ensure he was noticed. The fact that during this the window in apartment 5A would be left wide open would be irrelevant as no one was inside.

The third would have been the timely triggering of the alarm. Probably after 23:00.

By doing it before that time Kate interrupted the plan on its “stroll phase”.

The cleaning done in the corner by the T9 was what could have been achieved that night: to avoid anything suspicious being seen by the naked eye.

It was a successful cleaning.

Even if the Portuguese forensics marched in on the 4th, which was very unlikely as the crime scene had been purposefully NOT isolated by using the “abduction hysteria” as an excuse to go in and out of the apartment, it would give time for the “controlling forces” to curtail their actions.

The “6-cleaners” came after. Just like Harvey Keitel's character in Pulp Fiction, only days later.

Once the British authorities set foot on PdL this was their affair. It was never PJ’s.

So, as soon as was possible, even under everyone’s eyes, a forensic team waltzed in the apartment to “collect” samples.

When we say in front of everyone’s eyes, we’re not talking about the press.

The press that came to PdL were never meant to report anything but only to be fictional writers in the best Harry Potter style.

They didn’t see anything.

They saw what they were told to see and obediently saw it.

A memorable moment of collective cowardice.

The “6-cleaners” not only “collected” the samples as they almost “took” them all with them when they left.

And “almost” is the key word, as “almost” was left behind for the dogs to sniff out.



Post Scriptum:

“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Does Size Matter?":

Outstanding work my friend. Keep turning the screw. Are the 'cleaners' you refer to the Control Risks Group ?

Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 7 Dec 2013 10:26:00”

Processos Vol 11 2945 - 2956

Letter from DCCB to Mr Amaral on Sept 27 2007:

“O signatário, na companhia dos Inspectores Srs Mário Ramos, José Ricardo, António Brigantim e Carlos Dordonnat, em cumprimento de determinação superior, e na sequência de informação relacionada com a eventual vinda a TN de indivíduos de nacionalidade Inglesa pertencentes a uma empresa privada ligada a domínios diversos, nomeadamente, a recolha de informação, empresa essa denominada “CONTROL RISKS GROUPS”, os quais, supostamente, tinham, como objectivo a limpeza de espaços/objectos relacionados com a família McCann,…”

Which translates into:

"The undersigned, in the company of Inspectors Mário Ramos, José Ricardo, Antonio Brigantim and Carlos Dordonnat in compliance with higher determination, and in the sequence of information related to the eventual coming to National Territory [TN – Território Nacional] of individuals of English nationality belonging to a private company linked to diverse areas, namely, in information gathering, company that’s called "CONTROL RISKS GROUPS", which supposedly had as objective the cleaning of spaces/objects related to the McCann family, ... "

From Kate McCann’s book “Madeleine”:

“So on the afternoon of Friday 11 May, the paralegal, accompanied by a barrister, flew out to Portugal. We’d warned them to keep their arrival at our apartment low-key, so as not to attract any unwanted attention from the media lying in wait outside. In they came, dressed in bow ties and braces – the barrister was even wearing a panama hat. I heaved a sigh. They might as well have had great big arrows pointing at their heads reading ‘lawyer’. Not to worry: it was their presence and input that were important.

At the last two meetings the barrister and legal assistant were joined by a consultant called Hugh, whose profession was not at first explained (‘Just call me Hugh,’ he said enigmatically). It transpired that he was a former intelligence officer, now a kidnap negotiator and counsellor. We were told that an anonymous (but evidently very generous) donor had set aside a considerable sum of money for us to put towards the cost of hiring a private-investigation company if we wished. Hugh had been brought in by a firm called Control Risks, which was primed to help. This company is an independent specialist risk consultancy with offices and investigators on five continents and their main line of work is corporate security. It was a big gesture, we were immensely grateful and it was good to know this option was available to us.

The first session Hugh attended, which took place at night, had something of a James Bond atmosphere to it, and not in a good way. I felt as if I’d entered a whole new world, and it was an extremely mysterious and frightening one. Perhaps the worst bit was a remark Hugh made about the reward that was on offer. He told us dispassionately that such an inducement would have ‘put a price on Madeleine’s head’. I was very upset. The thought of anything we had done jeopardizing Madeleine’s life was too much to bear.

By the Sunday evening, we found ourselves giving our statements again, this time to a couple of detectives from Control Risks. We were concerned that parts of the statements we had made to the Portuguese police, especially on that first day, might have been lost in translation. We also felt that these accounts were not sufficiently thorough and wanted to have every detail we could remember registered properly. Unfortunately, in our haste to pass the new statements on to the PJ, we made the mistake of assuming that the transcripts would be correct and discovered only many months later that these, too, contained inaccuracies. And they had been given and recorded in English! A word of advice, in case you are ever unlucky enough to find yourself involved in a criminal investigation in any country: always make sure that you read your statement, in your own language, after you’ve provided it.

It was after one of the IFLG [International Family Law Group] meetings that Hugh asked me whether I was keeping a diary. Quite apart from the fact that I was an emotional wreck and hadn’t had time to blink for the past week, the idea had never crossed my mind. I hadn’t kept a diary since my early teens, and the accounts of my life then were mind-numbingly boring: what time I got up, what I ate for each meal and which lesson I’d enjoyed most that day.

‘You should,’ he said. He didn’t elaborate on why. The barrister handed me a spare A4 notebook he happened to have with him.

When I thought about it, I realized it would be a good way of remembering these dark and confusing days; of filling in the gaps for Madeleine on her return. It would also be a record of our story that might help all three children to understand what had happened when they were older. Setting aside some blank pages in the notebook I’d been given for the days that had already passed, I wrote a few paragraphs on a couple of occasions the following week, though I didn’t begin in earnest until 23 May, twenty days after Madeleine was taken. From then on, I kept my journal consistently, and when I had a spare moment I went back and filled in the blank pages with notes of our activities and my recollections of every day since 3 May 2007.

Though my main purpose was to keep a proper account for the children of everything that had happened, I found writing it down very therapeutic. It gave me an outlet for my thoughts and emotions, and a means of communicating with Madeleine. I could talk to her! I could also talk to God, and even to the abductor, if I wanted to. Whatever Hugh’s intention was, I am very grateful to him for his suggestion. It might just have saved my life.”

Madiba, Thank You

This world, our world, has lost today an angel, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela

The world’s greatest man has left us.

What a privilege it was to have breathed the same air he did.

He showed hatred, in all its colours, that the air is filled with love and is to be breathed by all equally.

We bow our heads. In respect. And to hide our tears.

Madiba, thank you so, so much.

"You have a limited time to stay on earth. You must try and use that period for the purpose of transforming your country into what you desire it to be"

Intentional - Not Debatable Fact

Crimewatch last night was like watching a re-run of Team McCann in Lisbon for the Libel Trial: weaker then the anticipated weak.

A public display of a publicly known humiliation that SY is undergoing epitomised by an evidently embarrassed Andy Redwood.

Why no mention of 2-Face, when just in Oct 14 2013 he was UK Crimewatch's biggest star?

In the Maddie Affair, there are things that are open for debate. Others aren't.

An example of something that is debatable: did Jane Tanner see the man that has become known as the Bundleman?

We say she did but most say she didn't. It's debatable. We accept and respect that many don't accept our opinion and we can only hope they return the favour.

An example of something that is not debatable: was Maddie abducted? It's a fact she wasn't.

But what proof do we have? The sheer impossibility of it happening?

What if the abductor used one of the doors instead of the window? It would mean the parents lied but the abduction would have been possible, wouldn't it?

What makes it a not debatable fact that there was no abduction is all the surmounting evidence to the contrary. Namely, but not exclusively, what the forensics have shown.

This post has the objective of proving that the Smith Sighting was intentional and that fact is not debatable.

Let's first understand where it all happened. The Rua da Escola Primária:
 

We have signalled, from left to right, an alley, Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz, an unnamed street,  stairs and the 3 locations of Smith's 3 groups, Smith 1, Smith 2 and Smith 3:

We know the sighting happened around 22:00, so at night, and we also know that the street was well illuminated by street lamps:

What we propose to do is to have you walk with me, using Google Map street view images, in Rua da Escola Primária:

I will incorporate the only possible character for the Smith Sighting to have happened by chance: a man, in his late 30s early 40s, carrying the body of a dead young girl, Maddie's body.

original picture

Scenario - I left apartment 5A via front door (parking area). Turned left on Rua Dr. Agostinho da Silva and walked all the way to the end. There, turned left on Rua Primeiro de Maio and immediately turned right on Rua da Escola Primária. This street curves first to the left then to the right and finally bifurcates.

Photo 1

Photo 1

I'm just before that Rua da Escola Primária's final left turn. I've walked approximately 200 m (218 yds or 8.4 tennis courts) holding the dead body of a young girl.

Have crossed with no one and haven't been seen by anyone either.

I have decided to turn left down Rua Escola Primária to continue my walk.

There's absolutely no reason for me not to do so.

Photo 2

Photo 2

I've passed the left turn and am heading down Rua da Escola Primária. Remain unseen so continue not to have a reason not to proceed.

However, I would say that here I would be able to hear in the silence of the night the noise made by the 9 Smiths, namely by the 3 teenagers.

I won't state that as fact, just raising it as a possibility.

Photo 3a

Photo 3a (detail of Photo 3)

For us, the key moment.

The moment I see Smith 1, Smith's son and wife, at the end of the street.

They are just a little bit down the road from the person with a black top in the picture above.

For those saying that there was no way I would see them let me remind you of just 2 small details.

The first one is that the distance between us is just 122 m (133 yds or 5.1 tennis courts) with no obstacles in between. Completely unobstructed view.

A football pitch is 90 - 120 m (100 - 130 yds). The couple is at a distance in which a goalkeeper sees another on the playing field.

The second detail is that I have a corpse in my arms. I have committed a serious crime, even if manslaughter, and am fully aware that I'm NOW committing the crime of obstructing justice so you bet I am very, very attentive in watching out for anyone seeing me while I'm doing it.

All my senses are switched on pitch high.

At this distance I probably can't tell if they're a couple or two people of the same gender, but do I care? It's someone, that's all that matters. I have a dead body in my hands. Do I want to be seen?

When one is stealing a cookie from the jar and one hears someone coming down the corridor does one care who that someone is or is one simply worried that it's someone?

I haven't stolen a cookie. I have a dead body in my arms.

But if you say that it's too far away, we'll respect that. Just make up your mind as to from where, as of this point, do you think you will see the Smiths.

Photo 3

Photo 3 - 122 metres

So, as I said, I am at 122 m (133 yds or 5.1 tennis courts) from Smith 1. My head starts to race as to what I can do to avoid contact.

Maybe I'm not aware yet but I have at 44 m (48 yds or 1.8 tennis courts) an escape route by the alley on the right, at 63 m (69 yds or 2.6 tennis courts) an escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on the left, at 73 m (80 yds or 3.1 tennis courts) an escape route by unnamed street on the right and at 103 m (112 yds or 4.3 tennis courts) an escape route by stairs on the left .

Instead of following my natural instincts, I decide not to turn back and to continue.

Photo 4

Photo 4 - 112 metres

I am now at 112 m (122 yds or 4.7 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 34 m (37 yds or 1.4 tennis courts) from escape route by the alley on the right, 53 m (58 yds or 2.2 tennis courts) from escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on the left, 63 m (69 yds or 2.6 tennis courts) from escape route by unnamed street on the right and 93 m (101 yds or 3.9 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left.

As I have decided to continue instead of turning back and  there's nothing new to decide, I decide to continue.

  

Photo 5

Photo 5 - 102 metres

I am 102 m (111 yds or 4.3 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 24 m (26 yds or 1.0 tennis courts) from escape route by alley on the right, 43 m (47 yds or 1.8 tennis courts) from escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on the left, 53 m (58 yds or 2.2 tennis courts) from escape route by unnamed street on the right and 83 m (90 yds or 3.5 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left.

Same situation as in photo 4 with the difference that I now can see both 2 nearby escape routes: alley and Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz.

So I continue.

Photo 6

Photo 6 - 89 metres

I am 89 m (97 yds or 3.7 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 11 m (12 yds or 0.5 tennis courts), from escape route by alley on the right, 30 m (33 yds or 1.3 tennis courts) from escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on the left, 40 m (44 yds or 1.7 tennis courts) and from escape route by unnamed street on the right 70 m (76 yds or 2.9 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left .

Photo 7

Photo 7 - 82 metres

I am 82 m (89 yds or 3.4 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 4 m (4 yds or 0.2 tennis courts), from escape route by alley on the right, 23 m (25 yds or 1.0 tennis courts) from escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on the left, 33 m (36 yds or 1.4 tennis courts) and from escape route by unnamed street on the right 63 m (69 yds or 2.6 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left .

I'm pratically on escape route via alley but from this point I can also see that Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz might be a better option as it allows for my movement to go naturally unnoticed by the Smiths.

By the way, this is the location where first Smithman appears in the Mockumentary's version of the Smith Sighting:

Notice how clearly you can see the white mini-van at the end. And the details of the shadows reflected on the wall behind it. Also count the number of cars that Smithman had to pass to be where he is.

Back to me being Smithman. Even in the unlikelyhood that they have noticed me, there's little they can tell the cops that will incriminate me in any way.

So I continue.

Photo 8

Photo 8 - 67 metres

I have left behind escape route by the alley and am 67 m (73 yds or 2.8 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 8 m (9 yds or 0.3 tennis courts) from escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz on the left, 27 m (29 yds or 1.1 tennis courts) from escape route by unnamed street on the right and 48 m (52 yds or 2.0 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left.

This means that I have opted not to use my first option to escape: the alley where I could hide. This is a fact.

Photo 9

Photo 9 - 59 metres

I have left behind escape route by the alley and am at escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz and am 59 m (64 yds or 2.5 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 19 m (21 yds or 0.8 tennis courts) from escape route by unnamed street on the right and 40 m (44 yds or 1.7 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left.

To claim that I cannot see a crowd of 9 at a distance of 60 m in front of me is absolutely ludicrous.

To claim that I haven't seen a crowd of 9 at a distance of 60 m in front of me while walking with a dead body in my arms is just not realistic.

Plus, I not only see them at this distance as I can also tell that the people aren't grouped together but spread out.

I may not be able make out exactly how many people there are in front of me nor in exactly how many groups they are separated into but of one thing I'm certain and that is if I continue down the road it will mean multiple encounters with multiple witnesses.

To continue down Rua da Escola Primária can only mean one of 2 things. Either I'm fascinatingly stupid or I've decided to use escape route by unnamed street on the right.




 

Photo 10

Photo 10 - 42 metres

I have left behind escape route by the alley and escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz and am 42 m (46 yds or 1.8 tennis courts) from Smith 1, 2 m (2 yds or 0.1 tennis courts) from unnamed street on the right  and 23 m (25 yds or 1.0 tennis courts) from the stairs on the left.

The fact that I am here means that I have opted not to use my second option (the most visible one) to escape: Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz to walk away from the Smiths. This is a fact.

I am left with the last reasonable option to sustain the thesis of an accidental encounter between me and the Smiths:  I have decided to use escape route by unnamed street on the right.

The stairs option is indeed still ahead of me but why use it if I just had a timely opportunity to head towards the direction of Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz and didn't do that?

Basically the fact that I am at this point clearly says that I either use unnamed street on the right or I want to make contact with the Smiths.

Photo 11

Photo 11 - 36 metres

I’ve left behind escape route by the alley and escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz, am at escape route by unnamed street, and am 36 m (39 yds or 1.5 tennis courts) from Smith 1 and from escape route by the stairs on the left 17 m (19 yds or 0.7 tennis courts).

This means that I have opted not to use my third option to escape: the unnamed street to walk away and hide from the Smiths. This is a fact.

I have decided against all reason and logic to head towards the Smiths.

Photo 12

Photo 12 - 24 metres

I have left behind the escape route by alley, escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz and escape route by unnamed street and am 24 m (26 yds or 1.0 tennis courts) from Smith 1 and 5 m (5 yds or 0.2 tennis courts) from escape route by the stairs on the left.

At this point it is impossible, repeat IMPOSSIBLE, to not have seen the Smiths right in front of me.

As shown, I have not stumbled on them by surprise.

I haven't materialised out of nowhere.

It's been a long walk before reaching this point. If I had to have panicked that would have happened well beyond. And panic makes one move away from the threat and certainly not into it.

Nothing, absolutely nothing justifies me not taking the stairs on the left. Absolutely nothing.

Even if my route to "somewhere" makes me use this particular street (we see no reason for that) nothing justifies me not leaving it, hiding, waiting for the Smiths to pass, and then returning to it.

It's equally IMPOSSIBLE, to not have seen the stairs. There's a street lamp right next to it!!

I either have a dead body on my hands and don't want to make contact OR... I don't have a dead body in my hands and want to make contact.

The decision to continue without using escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz (Photo 9) was, as we saw, amazingly stupid.

The decision to continue without using escape route by unnamed street (Photo 11) was, as we saw, surrealisticaly stupid.

The decision not to use escape route by stairs is being impossibly stupid.

Even if it might seem suspicious to the Smiths to see me turn and go up the stairs (don't see any reason for them to think that) what can they tell the cops?

They can tell the cops that I am a man.

They can describe my clothes, in a very generic manner (not all are eagled-eye like Jane Tanner who can tell minute details at a similar distance).

Eventually they can say that I'm in my early late thirties or early forties.

Besides this, little else.

One thing is certain, they will be able to tell a lot more if I continue down the road.

And, I remind you, I am not at this point because I had to be.

I am at this point because I decided to be.

We know that stupidity is limitless but no one is this impossibly stupid.

Or at least this impossibly stupid and then end up being incredibly smart to have committed "the crime of the XXI Century" and have gotten away with it to this day.

By the way, this is the location where in the Mockumentary's version of the Smith Sighting its single crossing happens:

They had to make it happen before the stairs.

Photo 13

Photo 13 - 12 metres

I have left behind escape route by the alley, escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz, escape route by unnamed street and escape route by stairs and am 12 m (13 yds or 0.5 tennis courts) from Smith 1.

From here on I know I'm going to make contact with the Smiths.  

Multiple contacts with multiple witnesses. I have chosen for that to happen.

I had 4 opportunities to avoid contact. I used none.

5 opportunities if you count, as you should, the most obvious and logical one: turning back the moment I saw the Smiths down the road.

No panic accounts for this. I had the distance of a whole football pitch to avoid the contact.

Photo 14

Photo 14 - 3 metres

I’ve left behind escape route by the alley, escape route by Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz, escape route by unnamed street and escape route by stairs and am 3 m (3 yds or 0.1 tennis courts) from Smith 1.

The Smith Sighting is about to begin.

By the way, this is exactly the location where Mockumentary's version of the Smith Sighting ends:



According to the McCanns all happened between Photo 9 and here. We wonder why, after all information in images don't get lost in translations, do they?

Photo 15

Photo 15

I have now passed Smith 1 by 10 m (11 yds or 0.4 tennis courts), heading towards Smith 2 and Smith 3.

Photo 16

Photo 16

I have now passed Smith 1 by 18 m (20 yds or 0.8 tennis courts), am at Smith 2, heading towards Smith 3.

Here I do the most amazing thing for someone with a dead body avoiding contact: I stop!!

Sky News, April 07 2008:

“Martin Smith, from Drogheda in Co Louth, was on holiday in Praia Da Luz with his family when they bumped into the man just before 10pm on May 3 last year. The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep. "He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.”

I stopped long enough and with near enough proximity to be asked by a total stranger if the dead body of the child I'm holding was asleep. Isn't that just absurdly surreal?



  

Photo 17

Photo 17

I have now passed Smith 1 by 26 m (28 yds or 1.1 tennis courts) and Smith 2 and am heading for Smith 3.

Google Maps street view doesn't go down Travessa das Escadinhas, so we have to stop our walk here.

Feeling tired? Please don't be.

It seems that I have given you a lot of detail but all given, with the exception of the Mockumentary pictures, is what we think went on the mind of the man seen in the Smith Sighting IF he was carrying the dead body of a child and DIDN'T want to be seen.

It would be unrealistic on our part to think the man thought about each detail with the precision we have presented.

But all of the details referred to would have been present in his mind.

As we said, this man has just committed a very serious crime and is supposedly trying to get away from it without being detected by committing another serious crime. 

All his senses are heightened. His space perception also. His mind working faster than full speed.

At each moment he's looking for escape routes in case he encounters someone unexpectedly. Obviously not only in Rua da Escola Primária but throughout the whole route to "wherever".

Before, during and after Rua da Escola Primária contact must be avoided at all costs.

All costs. All possibilities.

As you saw, this man walked into a very compromising situation for himself when he had all the time and opportunity(ies) to avoid it.

That can mean only one thing: he walked voluntarily to make contact with the Smiths.

But is it only his attitude coming towards the Smiths that tells us that this contact was absolutely intentional?

No. His actions while in contact are equally revealing of that intention.

One fact is that the Smith Sighting ended with the man going down the stairs, at Travessa das Escadinhas, towards Kelly's.
 

Taking into account that you are already on the left side of the street, which path would you choose, the blue or the red?

He chose the red. Why? Why zig-zag to go towards the stairs?  Wouldn't it be more natural and instinctive to "hide" the dead body by having it nearest to the wall as possible?

Why flaunt it?

Only one reason, he wants the Smiths to really grasp they have seen a man with a little blonde child in his arms. 

He crosses the road seeking proximity with Martin Smith and his wife. Note that Smith notices the man turns his head away from him. 

Why? To show he's holding a "sleeping" child but avoid revealing details about himself.
 

The two paths, blue and red, seen from different angles. Again, which would be the natural choice?

He chose red. Why?
 

Now imagine you are where the man on the picture above is. That's where Smith 2 contact happened.

You have already crossed with Smith's son and wife (Smith 2) and have stopped where Martin Smith is with his wife (Smith 2).

There's 2 options before you. You either go via red route and make the third contact with 3 teenagers or go via blue route where there's absolutely no one?

Like we showed you here, the man chose red. To make the third contact (Smith 3). Why?

The fact that the Smith Sighting was no accident and was intentional is not debatable. It's fact.

The only thing we hear contradicting this is those saying "It can't be so because he simply wouldn't risk being recognised after".

Let us just repeat what we said when proving a point about TS's first sighting of Pimpleman: "Try an experiment. Get an adult friend to look at a person you point to in the street. Make sure you have as much detail as you can yourself first. Give them some time to absorb detail, but don't tell them you are going to ask them to describe the person they are asked to look at. Then ask your friend to describe what s/he saw. I'd be surprised if they could remember half as much as TS."

The Smiths don't know they are going to be asked to recollect this incident, nor are even aware that it is an incident, so they're paying attention to the man as they should.

Martin Smith's son's attention is turned to his wife's welfare, Martin and his wife have their attention turned to their grandchildren and AS has her attention turned to the 2 other teenagers she's playing with.

They likely paid the man only a fleeting attention. They do grasp the big picture, a man with a blonde girl in his arms, but the details escape them.

This is confirmed by the fact that when the Smiths talk to the PJ none refer the possibility of the man being Gerry McCann. 

The McCanns' faces only became known in the evening of the 4th. If the Smiths had come forward during that day (the story was already in the news), they wouldn't be able to tell the McCanns apart from anyone else.

And their faces only became notoriously known in the subsequent days. Plenty of time for Smith to have come forward.

Note that when the Smiths speak to the PJ both Gerry and Kate are worldwide celebrities. The only face more known than theirs is Madeleine's. And none of them refer Gerry as the 30/40 yr old male with no particular outstanding characteristics.

The reference to Gerry only comes months later when he's seen coming down from the plane, holding his son.

If this hadn't jolted Martin Smith's memory the way it did to this day he would be the "perfect witness" as he would be both desired by the Black Hats as the mythical proof of abduction and by "White Hats" and White Hats alike as it would be the mythical proof of Maddie's body being disposed.

All the necessary ingredients for a never-ending discussion towards the blurry horizon of mythology.

It was that fascinating thing called subconscious that betrayed the whole subplot. That and Mr Smith's mouth. No one blames him for remembering but many do for having spoken.

And as we've seen the man was NOT very much worried about being recognised as he just walked literally right into the Smiths and even stopped so that he could be clearly seen.

Risking recognition does not deny that the Smith Sighting was intentional. It's no reason to outweigh all the surmounting evidence that it was.

It's a not debatable fact that it was.

Note that we haven't said, in this post, that it was Gerry or not, or if the child was dead or alive. All that is debatable. What isn't is that it was intentional.

I did portray a man carrying a dead body because it was the only scenario that the encounter could have been a surprise.  In case of the girl being alive, then there's no surprise whatsoever. It would be either someone trying to pass off the girl as Maddie, so wanting to make contact, or a PdL father simply walking home, so with no need to avoid it.

Besides saying that it was intentional, anything else said, by us or anyone else, about this incident is debatable.

Starting with as to the why it was intentional. That is debatable.

We have given our opinion, and sustained it. We say it was because it had the clear objective of having a 30/40 yr old male with no particular outstanding characteristics and with a blond girl in his arms seen there and there.

If it was Maddie related or not. That is debatable.

We have given our opinion, and sustained it, that the fact the girl was blonde, same age as Maddie and was in pyjamas and barefooted while the man carrying her had a coat on a chilly night makes it Maddie related.

If the girl was alive or not, is open for debate.

We have given our opinion, and sustained it, that by the vertical way she was carried and by the fact she was barefooted we think that the girl was alive and sedated.

To help prove our point:

(at Jill Havern and unterdenteppichgekehrt)

And in this post we have said that the intentionality of the sighting could only be because the man was not holding a dead body in his arms.

If the man's destination would have been the beach or not, is open for debate.

We have given our opinion, and sustained it, that it wasn't, as the access, via Rua Escola Primária and beach, to the sewer near the church, besides being an absurd route, is much too difficult for a foreigner to the town to know or to use (and certainly was one of the first places to have been searched) and to bury the body in the sand is simply ridiculous.

Out ot the 3 illogical but possible routes we know the man didn't use 2 (Rua Ema Vieira Alvernaz and Rua 25 de Abril). One cannot understand why he would use the third one, via Rua da Calheta, as it goes unnecessarily by Kelly's and Dolphins. 

If the man acted alone or had external help (a destination such as the church or an apartment), is open for debate.

We have given our opinion, and sustained it, that to have external help of some sort with the exception of the one that mattered the most, a car to transport the body, doesn't make any sense.

To clarify our position we openly defend that the McCanns had external help that night but the distance to which Maddie's body was transported did not require a vehicle.

If the sighting took place at 22:00 or not, is open for debate.

We haven't given our opinion on this yet but will say that as there's proof that the Smiths were exiting Restaurant Dolphins at 21:27 (exiting doesn't mean out the door as the payment could have been made while sitting still at the table) and that they supposedly headed for Kelly's afterwards for a quick drink as Martin's son had to fly the next day, we think it the incident happened between 21:45/21:50 - 22:00/22:15.

If the man was Gerry or not, is open for debate.

We have given our opinion, and sustained it, that it was him as he's the only T9 male with no particular outstanding characteristics.

We would like, at this point, to point out to all those gleefully saying that "2-Face" is Gerry to please be aware of the implications of saying that.

If we were you, we would dampen our enthusiasm for the sake of coherence. 

There's currently a debate about 2 OC employees not being sure whether Gerry was at Tapas at 22:00, the possible timing of the Smith Sighting.

This was said publicly by Mr. Amaral on CMTV. 

As we said, we will not comment on anything Mr Amaral has said lately, in exact the same way we kept silent about Tony Bennett's trial until the final decision.

But what all those people defending that "2-Face" is Gerry have to check is if their "storyline" allows for a prolonged absence on the part of Mr McCann from the Tapas dinner.

If any OC employee noticed it.

We will remind you that it was quite an activity filled dinner.

Do take into account that this prolonged absence has to allow him leave the table, go to apartment 5A, pick up the body, walk out via back door (why not use the front door?), be interrupted by Jez Wilkins, engage in small talk, wait for Jez to disappear out of sight, walk up Rua Dr. Franscisco Gentil Martins, turn left on Rua Dr. Agostinho da Silva, head towards the Smith Sighting, be seen, then from there head to "wherever", dispose or hide the body (if hidden remember to include time needed to ensure it was adequately accomodated and left) and then go back to Tapas.

We haven't included the expected change of clothes to avoid being seen wearing the same while carrying the corpse and when the GNR arrived. If he changed clothes, as he should, that would mean extra minutes at the beginning and make obligatory the return to the apartment before returning to Tapas at the end.

It does explain the mystery of the disappearance of the beige trousers on the McCann bed.

So to say that it was Gerry that Mr Smith saw, one has first to look attentively as to what the OC employees have said they saw that night.

And, if by chance, one is to discover that between what they have said and what is required for Gerry McCann to be at Rua da Escola Primária, one will have to say they're lying.

And if one discovers that ONE OC employee has lied, then one must question why. And if ONE has lied, how many others have too and why?

Where does one then draw the "honesty" line?

We, as you know, think that almost all, if not all OC staff who were in contact with the swinger group were quickly ordered to sing according to the same hymn music sheet that protected these guests and their "activity" above all else.

That's where we draw our "honesty" line and we like to be coherent.

Lastly, if the sighting really happened or not, is open for debate.

The fact that the Smith Sighting was intentional renders this particular debate irrelevant.

What?!? Say you...

Yes, that's right. All that matters is that it was concocted.

If you happen to believe, like we do, that the Smith Sighting happened as genuinely described by the Smiths, then the whole event was concocted up in apartment 5A by whoever and played out by a man, who we think is Gerry McCann.

This makes the Smiths unintentional and genuine witnesses.

There are some who defend that Mr Smith has come up with this convenient story to protect Robert Murat.  That he took too long to come forward (oddly, it's many of the same people who find it perfectly natural and acceptable for Mrs Fenn to have come forward only in late August).

We believe in the Smiths because their diverse statements are logical and coherent between themselves as they appear not to suffer from "Now-I-See-Now-You-Don't" Syndrome.

The syndrome that afflicted TS's mother, stopping her from seeing what her daughter saw although walking by her side, and Derek Flack's partner who, likewise, is unable to see what he can although like him almost bumping into Pimpleman.

But a debate is a debate and one must accept that there are those that believe the Smiths made it all up.

Then it simply means that the whole episode was concocted up by Mr Smith or by someone else for him.

This makes the Smiths Black Hats.

In both hypotheses, the episode is concocted.

In both hypotheses, it has the exact same objective: to have a 30/40 yr old male with no particular outstanding characteristics and with a blond girl in his arms be seen in Rua da Escola Primária around 22:00 on the night of May 3 2007.

As both have the same objective it's irrelevant whether it happened (Smith WH) or if it didn't happen (Smith BH).

What is relevant is that, whether real or fiction, it was intentional and that is a not debatable fact.

You can read our opinions about this particular episode in our Smith Sighting posts list on the blog's front page: