Tuesday, 13 April 2010

Three Little Words, Ten Huge Facts

I know I promised that in the next episode of the Smith Sighting Saga I would prove that Dr. Gerald McCann was The Luz Stroller, and I do apologise for not doing so right now.

Because this episode is still about that episode at 10 p.m, on the night of May 3rd, 2007, Praia da Luz.

Not that I won’t or that I’m incapable of providing the proof, but, in the former episode I overlooked three little words, that I think are of the utmost importance, and wouldn’t fit in the line of thought that I intend to use in that post.

And I do enjoy so much the smell of sweat on the McCann brow.

From Sky News I got the following:

“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.”


Three simple words that tell us so, so very much.

FIRST, they tell us there was proximity.

The Stroller was near enough for Mr Smith to think that he could start a conversation with the man.

SECOND, they tell us that The Stroller stopped.

One doesn’t start a conversation with a complete stranger that is passing by. Eventually one could, if one is of extroverted type, say an “Oh, such a pretty little girl” but expect no response other than a smile. But when one asks a stranger a question, one expects an answer, and as is said “suspicions were aroused because the man made no response”

The only other situation I see that one would address a passing stranger would be if the carried child presented visible injury or was carried in such a manner that that could be assumed.

But then the questions would be either a concerned “Is she alright?” or a samaritan “Can I help?” but not a peaceful “Is she asleep?”

THIRD, they tell us The Stroller stopped, and stopped for a significant period of time.

One only starts a conversation with a stranger in one of the following two situations; either one feels comfortable to do so, or one feels uncomfortable enough to use conversation to break the awkward silence.

Either way, a period of time must elapse. As per significant period of time, I mean seconds, for example, the time for a caring tourist father to have apparently lost his way, momentarily, back to his holiday lodging in a strange town, while carrying his sleeping child.

FOURTH, they tell us that the Smiths not only assumed that The Stroller was not local, as he was an English-speaking person.

Otherwise they wouldn’t have spoken to him, would they?

FIFTH, it tells us that there was a vocal interaction between The Stroller and the Smiths.

One of the Smiths spoke directly to him. As I’ve already said, he probably heard all of the family speak.

In my opinion, much before he crossed paths with the first of the Smiths. Or heard the Grandparents talking some silly granny stuff to their grandchildren, and certainly heard the youngsters yelling at each other in their games up and down the stairs. But all that is most likely.

Certain is the fact that he was talked to.

This, in turn, means that if he was a local, he got to know that that family before him was English-speaking; if he was a native English-speaker, he got to know that that family was Irish.

SIXTH, they tell us that the child was alive.

No man with a dead child in his arms would act as The Stroller did.

From three simple words, SIX very valuable pieces of information can be extracted.

If you’re an Anti-Justice Black Hat, you’ll probably consider that the six things I’ve just described as totally ludicrous.

Why? Just because you want to say they are, and because it suits you.

We’ve already grown used to that so please spare the effort of expressing it.

However, Mr/Mrs/Ms Black Hat, please be reminded that nowhere above have I said that it was Gerry McCann.

So do read it again, as it The Stroller MIGHT just be The Abductor.

Don’t worry, Ill wait.

The SIX facts do make sense don’t they?

Well let me then tell you that more can be extrapolated than those SIX facts.

SEVENTH, it reinforces the fact that The Stroller wished to be seen.

He was in no hurry, he seemed lost, and he not only did NOT avoid contact, as he practically forced it.

EIGTH, it clarifies that his heading for the stairs is far from innocent.

He has stopped. He has seen the youngsters on the stairs. He no longer needs to head for Kelly’s Bar, but he needs to be seen heading for the sea.

NINTH, with all the information abovementioned, only VERY RELEVANT facts would make the McCanns NOT consider this sighting as important as it is.

Not only have they not exploited fully this information, as they have been able to come up, all by themselves, with fact number

TEN: In their Channel 4 documentary, the McCanns have INTENTIONALLY DISTORTED the position in which the child is carried, explicitly explained in the various Smith statements in the files they so painstakingly and carefully took so long to translate, thus MISLEADING and minimizing its importance.

With this last fact, and this fact alone, one could almost tattoo “GUILT” on the McCanns forehead.

But almost is not enough.

No, I won’t promise that it will be in the next episode that I’ll prove that Gerry is The Stroller.

I do have that intent though. But I also had it when I wrote it the last time. You never know what surprises that might happen between now and then.


  1. Well thought out, beautiful piece of work.Thank you Tex.

  2. Pardon my ignorance, but if the child being carried was alive, what happened then?
    I am lost.

  3. That Anon, is to be explained in due time. I have to give something to the Black Hats to pick on... although they seem not to like to play games with me.

  4. It might be difficult even for a native speaker to recognize a particular accent with just 3 words spoken.
    G. Irl

  5. G Irl

    The family was spread over 20/30m meters. A sick person in front walking slowly... youngsters playing at the back... do you really believe that he didn't hear them enough to understand they were Irish?!?

    Well, I'm not a native speaker... and after Gerry's third word I knew he was Soctish.

  6. G .IRL. The three words spoken were to the man with child. The family I would imagine especially with children in tow were chattering and enjoying the evening. They had just left Kellys Bar...all be it one young lady was feeling unwell. They were a group spread out. Gerry Mccann always appealing to the Irish witnesses to come forward. I class that as reasonable doubt and look forward to the next episode.

  7. I have always been lucky and wanted to be the one to post the 27.000 Hit. I hope I made it and may I say I enjoy your blog.

  8. What if the STROLLER did not respond because he really could not understand English and was a very shy person to say anything?

  9. Phoebe,

    There are many, many hidden readers...

    But you might have made the "official" number... lolol

    Thanks for your comments

  10. Anon.,

    What I said is that "the Smiths not only assumed that The Stroller was not local, as he was an English-speaking person", did not say that he was not local.

    Please read carefully.

    By the way... if he was shy, he had had the opportunity to avoid the situation.

    And to clarify, let me tell you that if he was Portuguese he would have turned up his eyebrows showing ignorance of the language. The Portuguese who don't speak English don't feel ashamed of not knowing the language, so no need to turn away like a hunted animal.

    And independent of nationality, that particular man would have come foward a long, long time ago.

    Any other question?

  11. No more questions at this time :) Just curiosity to read your next posting with more of your thoughts.

  12. Pray I not to disappoint you :-)

  13. I am afraid that I don't follow the logic that a) Gerry must have stopped and b) that the child was alive.

    It is a theory but not more. I personally think it was a dead Madeleine that was carried to a very temporary (10pm - 4am) hiding place.

    And there is no proof for either theory.

  14. Johanna, I thought as you did. I think I wrote it. But pieces of the puzzle didn't fit. As well as they should.

    Respect your disagreement. As all who, in good-faith, think different from us both.

    In the last article on this, hope to clarify my point of view. Mind you, I'm not trying to convince anybody. Just stating things the way I see them.

    The truth should always be found by the adequate institutions. Unfortunately I've lost faith in them. Hope that they will make an effort to recover my respect.

    Lastly, by no means, am I the beholder of the truth.

  15. http://www.the3arguidos.info/topic100.htmlThe Smith family statements.

    If this had NOT been Gerry Mccann this sighting would have been too good an opportunity to miss. The FACT alone the childs pyjamas are identical to Tanner and Smiths description proves it had to have been the same child (Bare feet also). But which child that is the question. Many have questioned if it had been Mccann there would be cadaver scent on his clothes, yes but only if he were carrying a dead child. This child was was very much alive. Sleeping deeply, but alive.

    1. Good thought, did not ever hear of anybody saying that before, And BYW, the sniffer dogs wer not available until much much later.

  16. IMO the Smiths have taken a bung ,if not WHY have they not shouted from the rooftops? i am sure I would have ,I would not have let it drop

  17. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-454029/Search-Madeleine--police-release-pyjamas-wearing.html

    Madeleines PyJamas...

  18. hit = twitter I think,Text!


  19. http://gerrymccannsblogs.info/

    Gerrys ramblings

  20. We know Mitchell has been to see the Smiths and yes I would imagine they were made an offer they could not refuse.Kennedy also went to see Murat...Likewise I would imagine. Money was never spent on searching for Madeleine as they knew where Madeleine was..Therefore money was needed for something much more important.

  21. I don't know whether or not the Smiths were bribed by Mitchell and Kennedy. But from what I have learned of the modus operandi of these two gents over the course of the last 3 years, I would guess the Smiths were left in no doubt that they should STFU. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour, especially for people such as Mr Smith who have a large family to protect. You can't keep an eye on all of them all of the time.

  22. Reading the police file when Mr.Smith was 80% sure it was Gerry Mccann he saw. The officer commented he was shaking and very distressed. He was in shock.

    I fail to see why McCann is so surprised Mr.Smith remembered him, Gerry in his blog wrote 'The Pope recognised us'...Well Gerry if the Pope recognised you ,then so did Martin Smith.

  23. I am looking forward to your next installment, TextUSA. Although I am not yet convinced about your theory that the child being carried was alive, I do follow your logic and am keeping an open mind.

    There are a few sticking points for me.

    One. If McCann had deliberately attempted to be seen, the McCann's PR Machine would have been ALL OVER the Smith sighting. The fact that they were all over the place, from Morocco to Hewlett to the Beckham-Lookalike but have avoided the Smith sighting like the plague indicates to me that the sighting was indeed of Gerry carrying his dead daughter.

    I say that she was likely dead at the time based on the fact that the Smiths actually asked the question "IS SHE ASLEEP". When you pass a father carrying a sleeping child, that question is not what you ask. There must have been something about the way Maddie was positioned, something about the lack of movement in her body, her limpness or SOMETHING that would compel the Smiths to ask "IS SHE ASLEEP".

    If the child was obviously asleep, there would be no question. Therefore it seems to me that the Smiths asked the question out of concern that something other than SLEEP was causing the limpness/stillness in the child.

    As I said, I'm looking forward to your next post about this. I have no doubt that the Smiths witnessed Gerry McCann. I am open to the idea he may have been attempting a decoy to further the abduction theory, but at this point I firmly believe that he was carrying the body of his daughter.

  24. I think the Smiths were understandably afraid of the major players in the cover-up. There is no reason to believe they are unethical people and that their silence could be bought.

    They are from Ireland and they know who they are dealing with, as do many of the rest of us.

    It has not been SAFE for the Smiths to come forward any more than they have. They told the truth to the police and that is all they are required to do.

    There has been no reason to speak to the McCann-loving-story-spinning media about their sighting. Unlike everyone else in the case, the Smiths have apparently respected the Portuguese law regarding secrecy.

    I think they are, like the rest of us, watching and waiting for someone to contact an organisation that will handle the truth properly and protect its sources (wikileaks, for example) to finally blow the whistle on the cover-up.

  25. Anon @4.35 makes a very good point Tex...Mr.Smith in his statement said the man looked awkward carrying the child....this is what made me think of rigour mortis setting in.

    Anon I think the Smiths are as honest as the day is long. But we have no idea of fear the Mccanns and their machine can rain down upon those that know the truth.

  26. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlkFuRFZNSQ

    Footage from 2007

    We now know the Madeleine Fund money went to 'HANOVER' to clean up the Mccanns image on their arrival back in the UK.

  27. Asking: 'Is she asleep?' suggests, as others have pointed out, that there was something peculiar in the way that the child looked and the way the child was being held. It is quite likely, in my opinion, that if this was Madeleine then she would have been very heavily sedated. Maye in a coma even. I think it is also telling that in Jane Tanner's sighting the man is holding the child in a very different way. Not in a way you would normally carry a child.

    As for the question of intimidating witnesses. Jeremy Wilkins who was the man pushing his child around the resort in a buggy on the evening Madeleine disappeared objected to the manner in which the detective agency working for the McCanns contacted him. The implication being that it was heavy-handed.

    Yes indeed - he and the Smiths are two vital witnesses and must have been quite a spanner in the McCann machinery.

    The McCanns, while hugely cunning and manipulative, are not stupid (although not as clever as they think). They must have been pretty confident that they would receive high level support in order to pull off the Madeleine disappearance trick.


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.