Tuesday, 22 June 2010

A Human Being Is Always Human

Just like taxes, death is inevitable, they say. However, Agostinho da Silva, a Portuguese scholar, did say, with undeniable logic, that there’s no otherwise proof that the human being isn’t immortal.

The only existing proof is that all those who’ve died until today weren’t.

As the first person to be immortal is to never realize that fact, as he expects, like the rest of us, to die, but doesn’t, we all can be that immortal one. Only death will prove us not to be that, but doesn’t, as said before, prove that those who remain here aren’t.

Brilliant logic, although Agostinho da Silva has, himself, passed away and the likelihood of that happening also to all and each one of us seems to be very high indeed.

We’re all given the exact same time to prepare for that particular moment: a lifetime. But, inevitably, it always catches us unprepared. We’re simply afraid of it. No way around that. Be it because of the unknown it represents, be it for its unappealing irreversibility, unless you happen to be named Lazarus and even he didn’t escape it the second time.

Life is hard, but it’s much harder to leave it. So we block the anguish that it causes us, by simply ignoring that fact. We just live like we aren’t going to die. We know we will, but just pretend we won’t.

Death then becomes an avoidable subject, something to be kept at a very comfortable distance. We find its images either gross or shocking, because they remind us that our pretense is useless.

Our interaction with this subject is particularly difficult. But when it befalls on a child, it’s simply repulsive, for the injustice it implicates.

None of us know exactly how long a certain lifetime is supposed to be, but we do have a perception of what life expectancy amounts to, and certainly it isn’t only a childhood. This obviously influences the way a body of a dead child is carried.

There are physical and psychological reasons for us to carry a dead child the way we do. I’ll start with the easiest ones, the physical.

But to do that I have to explain one psychological detail, related to death itself and not with the ones which affect us in the decision in how we carry a dead child, which I’ll deal with later. That detail is humanity.

One could almost say that the relationship of the humanity of a corpse is inversely proportional to the settling of Rigor Mortis (RM) in it. The more RM settles in a body, the less humane it becomes. That’s why you never see a “stiff corpse” being carried by other than those professionally related to the carrying (undertakers, forensics, etc.), and do see the carrying of “limp” corpses by who we often assume to be a relative of the recently deceased.

The recently deceased are still full of humanity. We look upon them as a departed, only later do we see them as corpses.

So for the physical reasons, I’m only going to refer to recently deceased children. A child in full RM is not only exceptional as it isn’t applicable to the Smith Sighting. That would mean that Maddie would have to have been killed from 6/8 hours up to 3 days before, and in that timeframe certainly another means of transportation of the body, other than on foot, would have been found, and I'll not even speak about other gruesome details that the decomposition process implicates.

There’s one reason why, physically, a dead child is carried the way it is, and that is called gravity.
If the corpse of a child is carried in the VERTICAL position, then the uncooperative head becomes too heavy and will tend to wobble around as the neck muscles no longer maintain the head in its position.

This lack of cooperation is extended to the upper body as it offers no assistance in maintaining the verticality.
If a child is carried in the HORIZONTAL position, once again the uncooperative muscular mass becomes simply weight and the body, being smooth, will tend to slip between our arms and fall.
We have to find some leverage points to avoid this falling, and the human body has two very specific “picking up” points: under the knees, and under the armpits, as seen above.

To differentiate this position from the HORIZONTAL one, I’ll call this, the DECEASED position, as is only applicable to the transportation of a lifeless body. In the present case, a small body.

If you hold a body in the DECEASED position it doesn’t fall. However, there’s no support for the head, and that’s why it falls backward the way it does, visually violent to all that have to see it.

There’s another way to carry a body, and that is throwing the body over the shoulder, making the leverage point the hips. But that is treating the corpse like a carcass, and that’s disrespectful.

And respect is a psychological sentiment, so let me tell you why, other than physically, we carry the body of a dead child the way we do.

As I said above, we all have a difficult time to relate with that phenomenon called death. We want to be detached from it. But as humans we’re filled with an array of sentiments that we hold dear, amongst which I would highlight love and respect, and this is reflected in the way we treat our deceased, by wanting to have them treated with the utmost dignity and veneration.

This duplicity of feelings, detachment and love, affects the way we pick up the corpse of a child. The deceased is either known to its carrier, or it’s not, but either way, respect will be shown.

If it’s the body of a child one doesn’t know, one tends to carry it in DECEASED position as it the most detached but yet comfortable way we can transport it. We want to distance ourselves from the death that is right there before us, staring at us from that lifeless body.

To hold it by the armpits and transport it at arm’s length would be disrespectful, besides being physically too tiresome.

This mother gorilla holds her dead offspring in that manner, for she has no concept of respect or love, as is just capable to have nature’s impetus to provide motherly nurturing, and realizes that her offspring is now just a disposable “thing”:
If the body of the child is of one that was dear to us, we, for almost opposing reasons, hold it the same way.

We don’t want to detach ourselves from anything, but although our rationale tells us that the child is gone, we refuse to accept it, and want to show the world the disgrace that has befallen on us.

By holding it in the DECEASED position we’re exposing the body, showing it to everyone.

We may hold the body to our chest showing all the love we had, but when we have to transport it, the DECEASED position is the most humane, respectful and yet comfortable way to do it.
Jane Tanner’s above description of the abductor is a picture-perfect one would describe the DESEASED position.

Why? That will be dealt with later. The child in the Smith Sighting was not seen being carried the DECEASED position, but in the VERTICAL one, without any support to the head:

This can ONLY mean (no assumptions here, and completely beyond any whatever reasonable doubt) that the child was alive at the time of the Smith Sighting.


  1. Tanner realised TOO late her words on Panorama and the significance of her arm movements..she tried and stumbled as to explain what she meant but her mind was 'all seeing' and the words followed.

    ONLY dead children as the war torn pictures reveal are carried this way.

    Thank you Tanner and may God have mercy on your soul.

  2. One more VERY important point, McCann, he had to change the Smiths sighting position of the child to match TANNERS...He chose to fiddle with the facts to fit his scenario...

    A minor Detail for McCann but a BIG clue for us...A witness statement changed to suit a father who claims abduction..

  3. Then, let me think:

    -Two man's were out of the table at the same time, for quite long time and more or less at the time the Smiths saw Gerry carrying a Child.

    - One was Gerry, the other O'Brien ( just by small coincidence, the Partner of Jane tanner).

    - Jane Tanner, according with Tapas workers, never left the table on that night and Kate left immediately after Gerry arrived and said something to her.

    - Wilkins state's that he talk with Gerry but did not saw Jane. Same as Gerry.

    -Gerry could be the guy who carried the alive child ( Smiths sight) and O'Brien, the guy who carried dead Madeleine ( Jane sight). No matter if Jane never left the table and had that sight. She knows that on Mccann's plan ( Maddie colour book timeline) she have to play an inportant role attesting this sight just in case that an independent witness saw her partner carrying the body. O' Brien according to some Newspapers, use to come to PDL and know people related with surf and most probably... Murat.

    - we have many mobile calls deleted in the Tapas phone, special on Gerry and Kate mobile. And we have Murat and Malinka calls during the same night and before the alarm was raised.

    -We have the dogs marking the dead body in the living room,in the wardrobe of Mccann's room ( the beds changed to allow space and the sofa moved), in the balcony and then in the garden bellow the balcony. Where was O'Brien flat? Which Flat was the most close to the Mccann's?

    - Then we have a blue bag and a blanket, collected late from the flat, after raising the alarm, but very useful to hide a body and carry it as luggage.

    - And we have Payne, the last person, together with Mccann's, who saw Madeleine alive, according to their own statements. He was left completely out of the last events, before raising the alarm. WHY?

    - And we have Diane Webster, who show no emotion, no anguish, no rush by the scenary of one of her friends child being abducted. Her behaviour dennounce a pre-agreed plan.

  4. After all that happened with your friend Dani I can only imagine how difficult it was for you to write this. On behalf of all, thank you for you effort.

  5. TotallyConfused22 Jun 2010, 17:33:00

    A very simple point based only on my experience as a mother.....

    When carrying a SLEEPING child, the natural position is in the vertical position. But with a difference to the model. (Which shows the child over the left shoulder of the adult) That is the parent (or carrier) would instinctively put their right hand much higher upon the child's right shoulder- or occasionally in more of a 'cusping' position towards the very top of the spine where it meets the neck. From my recollection as a parent, these are the most natural/instinctive positionings- whether the child is 6 months or 6 years.

    As for the Horizonal position, I only can think of the following reasons for this with a breathing child; you are travelling a very very short distance with the child, the child is gravely ill or injured and you are rushing in an emergency, you are inept and don't know the importance of supporting the neck in small children.

    Just my thoughts.


  6. Anon 5:25, thank you, and yes, thought of my friend in each and every word. But my backside still hurts, so I HAD to write the post otherwise I would get it punted again...

  7. TC, agree with you when you say "would instinctively put their right hand much higher upon the child's right shoulder- or occasionally in more of a 'cusping' position towards the very top of the spine where it meets the neck."

    However, I intentionally placed the hand lower down for two reasons. The first, is that you're a mother, and mothers do tend to be more protective than fathers (excluding those men that had, due to whatever reasons, to be mother/father). This is because mothers handle the child from its most fragile state, the new-born. The Smith Sighting child was carried by a man.

    The second reason is that I had to get the proportions right, so I looked for the most adequate model: Gerry carrying the child of the plane, and as you can see, he holds the hand lower down.

    Thanks for you tuppence.

  8. Perhaps (if the child was alive) the man who was carrying the child in the horizontal position did it in this way, because the child was not his own and he didn't have affection towards the child?

  9. Anon 7:49,

    It’s not a question of affection, but of being affected by carrying a significant weight for almost half a mile, in your arms. To even consider the possibility that he reached that spot holding a sleeping or drugged child in the horizontal position, in whatever mindset of affection, can only mean that I didn’t make my self sufficiently clear in getting the message across, albeit three posts on the subject.

    Maybe that’s why the McCanns also got the position wrong in their documentary. The Smith’s statements, apparently, also weren’t clear enough.

    But sometimes, messages do come across much clearer than intended, like yours for example.

    Your soft-spoken, and apparently very polite, question, camouflages your real intent. With your “if she was alive”, you raise doubts about all I’ve written, and when state “the man who was carrying the child in the horizontal position” position, you repeat the feat.

    All unjustified statements that after THREE detailed posts on the subject, simply just wipe under the rug ALL my argumentation, expecting to trigger, on my part and once again, a justification to what has already has been CLEARLY and THOUROUGHLY justified.

    By having me reply to your “affection” question, you’re hoping that subliminally people will think that I’m conceding to your assumptions. Sorry, can’t help you there. Not out of stubbornness, but out of LOGIC. The same logic that you’re unable to argue against and so much fear it.

    Placing a perfectly acceptable question on top of ALREADY ESTABLISHED ABSURDITIES is a tactic already denounced by me, commonly used by Black Hats. They hope to legitimize that way the casting of doubt on a decided subject.

    The expected result is to make the discussion return, over and over, endlessly, back to square one, never allowing it to develop, making it losing objectiveness and force to end ending up nowhere near its initial outset.

    As I’ve explained, and will continue to do so, ALL the McCanns schemes have back-fired, making whatever expected results, to result in its opposite. We, in this blog shall never lose sight of our objective nor of our objectiveness.

    You may disagree with me, but just saying so, without any justification as to the why, like you did, will not suffice.

    Your question is not thought provoking, simply a provocation. In this blog, such disrespect will not be tolerated.

  10. Anon @ 7:49,

    why don't you clear assume what you want to say: carried by an abductor, instead of "because the child was not his own and he didn't have affection towards the child"?

    What a nonsense post, showing perfectly that Mccann's work for some kind of special public, who buy their lies without using a faculty god gave us- brain, inteligence and logic-

    Can you just answer that questions:
    An abductor will carry a child in a most confortable way to him or in a most difficult?
    An abductor will carry a child for short distance avoiding public eyes and hidding immediatly with his prey or will walk a long distance exposing himself to the public and taking the risk of being spoted by somebody, including by a police?
    what is the use of a dead child for any abductor, no matter if he belongs to a paedo ring or to an adoption net?

    IN FACT MADELEINE IS USELESS, ALIVE OR NOT, FOR ANY ORGANIZATION WHO IS CONNECTED WITH CHILDS TRAFFIC. She his too young for paedos or to work as a slave and too old for adoption, special when babys were available.

    The only case that she suits an abduction, it was if somebody related with her family wanted to use her as a vincative trophy to punnish her parents. But again, where are the evidences? and our special fathers clear said they don't have enemies or cases with anybody. They were the first ones, who eliminate the most probably situation for an abduction.

    Clear enough, my dear? Sorry but I can't look at your post without a pinch of sarcasm. After 3 years, they still passing their lie across, and I hope you are not one of that kind of people who spare some money to buy Tshirts, yellow or green bracelets or travel packs, in the Internet, feeding a Fraud and giving them power to pay top lawyers, who scare people and prevent justice and the truth.

  11. Hi, there! Hi, Iron. and Text and All !

    Oh, Text: You disagrre why? I think anon 7:49 is a emotional Person. I think the comment is not to over react.

    Text and Iron: You have a very rational tought , absolutly important but You know we are very emotional also. So, to the emotional people react emotional .

    But, in mine opinion You must be cientific ( error, because i do not went to google translator).


    Posted by LaPieinsky on June 23, 2010 at 1:40am

    Here is my friend's researched post:

    ..... Take a moment to think about it - and keep it in mind as I attempt to simplify and talk you through some of the most complex and fascinating of subjects. .........

    ( If You are interested must read on:


  12. mc,

    You're such a nice and kind person, and that's why I love you so much.

    Don't worry, my response was not emotional, it takes much, much more to make me lose my temper.

    Thank you very much for the link, and thank you for all your comments.

  13. eh,eh I received LOVE by morning! UAU!!!!!!!!

    Thank You. Take care.

    BUT: " nice and kind person " DEPENDS from day, hour, minute and I sleep well............

  14. Have a look at "Mccann Unravels". An article about connections and coincidencies surrounding the Mccann's.

  15. Since there was blood found in the apartment we should assume that the child died there.
    The first thing that Gerry would have done is to wrap the body up in plastic bags ready for disposal and then try to clean any visible residues.
    I don't think he would have carried it around town, it doesn't make sense.
    Could it be that he was carrying someone elses child ?

  16. As with simulated neglect we had simulated abduction...McCanns far from stupid, they knew the first to be suspected .... always family.

    There was NO evidence of an abduction so they created one.

    Had Wilkins not passed by chance and seen Mccann the plan would have gone well and we would not be here today. IMHO

  17. Quote

    Jon Corner:"Maddy (McCann) was asleep in the room with Sean and Amelie and whoever has taken her has gone straight past the sleeping twins."

    Interesting remark as Madeleine was supposed to be in the bed just inside the door...

    Wednesday morning maid noticed the only bed messed in the room was the one under the window and one cot...the other cot was in Mccanns room.

    Gerry Mccann has denied in his statement the cot was ever in their room.

  18. Sorry I don't know which section to post this in, but a friend said to me yesterday:Maybe when the maid heard her call Daddy Daddy!! It was someone saying Maddie!! Although, I think you said somewhere, Text, that you doubt the Fenn testimony. Love your hard work.


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.