Tuesday, 29 June 2010

Self-Evident Fact: Sedation

I’ve said that the sedation of the little girl carried by “The Stroller” was so self-evident that it would take just one paragraph to prove.

But there are so many self-evident things in this case that people have apparently failed to notice that I’ll take a little more than a paragraph on this particular issue.

There are five and only five unanimously accepted facts in the whole McCann saga: first, the girl seen by the Smith family was carried by a man, second, she was barefooted, third, she was dressed in flimsy pyjamas, fourth, she offered no resistance, and fifth, she had her eyes closed, apparently sleeping.

All the remainder facts are subject to disagreement; and in most, with an argumentation as stubborn as baseless and bizarre, aimed only to contradict for contradiction’s sake the most basic and irrefutable logic.

But on this post the objective is to look for consensuality to its possible extent.

Defended by the McCann & friends, and by a few exceptions on this side, such as both myself and Ironside, is that the man carrying the girl was wearing a jacket and beige pants.

These facts are taken from Jane Tanner’s statements, and aren’t accepted by those who believe that she didn’t see anyone and that the body was carried away in a blue bag, right below the coppers’, in this case, the GNR, noses.

As you might have deduced by now, I’m a firm believer that the blue bag did not serve for that purpose, yes, it did a “now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t” kind of performance but that will be analyzed in an upcoming post.

Today, what matters to be used as a baseline, is that a girl was carried, without any resistance and in an evident, uncontested, state of unconsciousness, barefooted and dressed in flimsy pyjamas, by a man wearing a jacket, from Apartment 5A to the Rua da Escola Primária where both were seen by the Smith family.

What is not consensual in the paragraph above? First the girl; most say was Maddie, and I say it wasn’t. Then, there seems to be a disagreement about what was effectively her state of unconsciousness. The Black Hats say she was asleep, most White Hats say she was dead, and Metodo 2 say she was simply sedated.

Lastly, and least important detail, but has to be taken into account, is the distance the carrier carried the girl. If you think Tanner’s sighting was real AND that it was Maddie that was seen by the Smiths, then the distance is around 700 metres (route taken to go EAST, past Murat’s house and turning back WEST towards where the sighting occurred); and if you believe, like I do, that it wasn’t Maddie; then the distance becomes a mere 400 metres (having turned WEST immediately after leaving Apartment 5A).

Here is a picture of the McCanns taken, I believe on May 5th, two evenings after the fateful night:
I don’t remember of any sudden meteorological alterations happening at the time, so I’m assuming that the temperature outside when the picture was taken was very similar to those of the evening Maddie disappeared.

As you can see by their clothing, they don’t to require protection from significant cold, but did find the need for some long sleeved clothing due to the night chill.

I would say that the evening temperature for PDL on an early May evening would be around 10-12ºC (50-54ºF). Chilly. Not freezing cold, but uncomfortably chilly.

It was uncomfortable enough to the point of having called Tanner’s attention the lack of a blanket covering the child she says she saw carrying before her eyes.

We have one precious reference that we can always look upon whenever we need to see what EXACTLY the McCann’s version of those evening facts is: The Channel 4 “Cutting Edge” documentary.

This documentary, may I remind you, was filmed under the close direction of Gerry McCann himself, and had in PDL with him Oldfield’s and Tanner’s presence.

I also remind you that the stated objective of this film was made so that it could enable the jolting of the memory of any possible further witnesses. This documentary was filmed late April, beginning of May, I cannot be precise, but that is irrelevant, as the idea was to reconstruct what the McCanns thought adequate to be reconstructed, showing only the detail that the McCanns thought relevant, so that any further potential witness watching it would have the same reaction Mr. Smith had when he watched Gerry McCann come off the plane.

So it’s natural, expectable and essential the importance that was, as should have been, given to detail.

The documentary was quite disappointing, as of all that particular evening’s multitude of events, only two were reconstructed: the Tanner’s Sighting and the Smith’s Sighting.

All the rest was explained by the participants, only in terms of how they happened, without reenacting anything.

Many of the events went completely unexplained, but those, certainly the McCanns thought that they wouldn’t trigger anything off anyone. Useless... in their opinion, mind you, not mine.

If my memory doesn’t fail me, these people received the documentation late July 2008, and spent almost a year translating its content. That can only mean that when they chose these two particular events in April/May 2009, they thought them to be the most relevant ones, so documented themselves well, and were meticulous in their reproduction.

Otherwise, one has to think, what would be then the use? Publicity? Intentional misleading? If so, why? Let’s not be negative, and assume that they read all the tranlated documentation thouroughly, and when they headed for PDL with the cameras, they had ALL details right, at least for those two important events.

Let’s then start by seeing how McCann, Oldfield and Tanner appear dressed for the filming:
Well, it seems to be a quite, quite chilly evening, doesn’t it?

But then again, they’re not reproducing any event, so they’re entitled to be dressed in whatever they deem comfortable.

But let’s look now at the reenactment. Besides the fact that two witnesses, Wilkins and Tanner, having said that the Gerry/Jez meeting took place next to the sidewalk near the apartment, and the scene being filmed according to the sole testimony of another witness, McCann himself, what is relevant here is how warmly the actress portraying Jane Tanner is dressed:
As well as of the supposed abductor:
And of the Smith family:

Sleep usually begins when the rate of temperature change and body heat loss is maximal.

The average adult’s lowest temperature is at about 5 AM, or two hours before waking time. Human beings are endotherms - able to thermoregulate - , that is, maintain their body temperature.

Body temperature is regulated through a balance of heat absorption, production and loss. When we’re sleeping, we tend to compensate the lack of heat absorption and production by lowering down the body temperature.

That’s why we need blankets to sleep peacefully, and that’s why even room temperature feels so cold during the night.

When we're cold, we wake up.

There can ONLY be three reasons to justify the girl’s state of unconsciousness: sleep, sedation or death.

She certainly was not asleep. Do I really have to explain why? It’s IMPOSSIBLE for a child, barefooted and flimsy dressed, not to wake up when been carried by a total stranger for 700 metres (McCann version) in a night chill.

And on waking up  as she HAD to, upon finding herself in the arms of an absolute stranger in the middle of the night, and in the middle of nowhere familiar, it’s IMPOSSIBLE not to have reacted.

That child, to be Maddie, according to the McCann version, HAD to be awake and frightened, NEVER ASLEEP.

 It’s also IMPOSSIBLE for a child, exposed feet and flimsy dressed, not to be wake if carried for 400 metres (my version) even by someone that she could be very familiar with, in a night chill.

That child, NOT Maddie, HAD, to be FULLY AWAKE and alert. The fact that the child was barefoot and flimsy dressed while being carried by a man wearing a warm jacket in the chillness of the night; RULES OUT ANY POSSIBILITY for that pair to be just “a” father carrying a daughter, however negligent that particular parent might happen to be.

Very importantly, it proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that she was forcibly unconscious.

There are ONLY two reasons that can explain this forced unconsciousness: sedation or death.

This is so, so self-evident that only the willful blind will not see it. It certainly doesn’t make me a brilliant person to point it out. Nor even reveals above-average intelligence. It’s a clear fact, it’s an obvious fact, and it’s a fact that to even pretend it’s not there you have to turn your head away with your eyes shut really hard.

And like this fact, there are so many others are as evident and yet remain unseen, as I’ll show you.

That is if the McCanns don’t confess meanwhile and save me the trouble.

I’ve already explained how death can be ruled out. We’re then left with the ONLY other alternative: SEDATION.

As I said, no parent would throw on himself a warm jacket and take outside his ill-dressed offspring into the night’s chill. If only there was only one jacket available, priority would go, so says nature, to the child.

 He wouldn’t do that, unless he had the intention of proving a point.

And what point would that be? Well, to prove the point that at that time, at that particular quaint little Portuguese village a man was seen out on the street carrying a little girl, albeit the chilly night, in an exact replica of Madeleine Beth McCann at the moment she was supposedly abducted: blond, barefooted, apparently sleeping and dressed in flimsy pyjamas.


  1. Very,very nice. And Tanner cried because Mccann would not agree with her where he was standing the night he spoke with Wilkins...but then how would she know when she did not see them.

  2. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Tanner said in her police questioning that the night was chilly, so much so that she even had to put on her partner's fleece jacket to go and do her check.
    She also mentioned something about her wearing flipflops at the time and the noise those made on the pavement...strange how both Gerry and Wilkins still managed to miss her despite the noise!

  3. Wilkins did see Tanner that night but much earlier, she was standing outside her apartment wearing a purple dress. Obviously Tanner did not see Wilkins, I would imagine she had much more important things on her mind.

  4. I hope people when they read this blog also look in the Archives...there is a wealth of information to be found. Here, a picture of Tanner wearing a thick purple coloured cardigan...this would have matched her purple dress Wilkins saw her in that night. Tanner had a thick cardigan so why would she need to borrow a jacket?

    Tanner holding close in her arms a child, her child,from the back it could have been Madeleine except for one thing, Madeleine was no longer around.


  5. The faked Madeleine was Jane Tanner daughter? same age, same size?

  6. I have to say I am very surprised how much alike the two jackets are. The abductors jacket, is this Mccanns ?I presume as he was the director did he lend his own jacket for the part.And here we have McCann looking sheepish and wearing the same style jacket.Very interesting.Thank-you.

  7. Tanners child, is O'Brian the father, does anyone know?

  8. Dear Anon. @ 9:10 am, I DID read the files( I'm anon.@12:28am)! I DID read the rogatory interviews, namely the Tanner one!
    Here, the part that confirms what I posted before:

    In The McCann Files:

    Jane Tanner - Record Of Tape Recorded Interview IV

    "4078 “But just do the best you can”.
    Reply “Yeah. Erm, I’m just trying to, well I’ve walked out of the, walked out of the, erm, the Tap, you know, walked sort of into the reception of the Tapas Bar and obviously walked up the road. I remember I was wearing, because it was cold, I’d got Russell’s big, I’d borrowed one of his, erm, fleeces, so I’d got a big sort of fleece, it probably came down to about here, but then I’d got flip-flops on and cropped trousers, because I’d only got, I didn’t take jeans, I know I didn’t take jeans on holiday, and then. Oh I’m sidetracking a bit, but that’s why I knew one of the pictures in the paper wasn’t from the holiday, because I hadn’t got jeans on the holiday with me, so. Erm, yeah, and I’d got cropped trousers on and just flip-flops, so I can remember sort of walking, I couldn’t walk that quickly because I’d got these silly flip-flops on and I couldn’t walk that, that well..."

    "Reply “Yeah, there’s sort of like a pavement which is sort of almost like made up of, it’s not cobbles, but made up of small stones”.
    4078 “Not ideal for flip-flop wearers?”
    Reply “No, because I do remember, I was almost looking at my, sort of not looking at my feet, but I was sort of padding, because obviously I was trying to get to do the check and get back as quick as possible as well, so I just thought ‘Oh I’ll just go and do the check as quick as possible’ and I did think, I was not struggling to walk in my flip-flips, but, you know, I wasn’t, I wasn’t striding”."

    One strange thing, in that rogatory interview she was asked several times about the weather, how was the weather like on this and that occasion, and about what she was wearing, namely when she went for a particular run( Sunday or Monday)!Why such interest in the weather conditions?
    She confirms that it was cold, chilly, "cardigan weather" and that they NEVER opened the shutters on their children's room! Just like the Mccanns, who said they never opened the shutters in their children's room too!
    It must be a british thing, to keep the rooms dark, and choose to do whatever activities that needed doing(dressing the children, etc.) either in the dark or by putting on the lights, despite the plenty daylight outside! Very eco-friendly, eh?

    “And how did you get into the habit, what habit did you get into of leaving either of the shutters or the windows shut…”
    Reply “We never opened those shutters at all the whole time we were there because it was great because it made the room really dark so it was good for them sleeping.”
    4078 “Mm.”
    Reply “And we didn’t use that room in the day so I don’t think we ever, well I certainly never even, never opened them or shut them.”
    4078 “What was the weather like when you were there?”
    Reply “It wasn’t, again it wasn’t brilliant, I think it was nicer in the UK.”
    4078 “So you went on the wrong day.”
    Reply “Yeah, I think err so it wasn’t, that’s one reason why we didn’t open the shutters to open the window or anything in that room, it wasn’t actually really hot at all, it was actually quite cloudy in the days and at night it was actually quite chilly.”
    4078 “So it wasn’t sort of going in the pool weather or, only if you’re very brave.”

    Is it a coincidence, or a way of justifying something that might have seem like weird behavior from the McCanns?...(remember that the McCanns claim they never operated the window, but Kate's prints were on it...)

  9. Anon. @9:10 am:

    As it occurred to you she might NOT have taken her thick coat with her to the Tapas that night and so she felt the need to put on her partner's fleece?...

    Weird how some people feel the imperious need to descredit all that is said that might in any way put a blemish on the "whiter than white, purer than the fresh snow" Tapas gang!

  10. Anon.@):10 am,

    unless you can offer undisputable evidence that that Tanner photo was taken on the night of the 3rd, during the diner at the Tapas bar, or that Tanner had indeed taken that coat with her to the said diner, please, DO NOT question what others post about it!!!

  11. Anon@11.44 and Anon @ 11.58

    I apologize I seem not to have been very clear...when I said the Archives I meant the Archives of TEXTUSA not the police files...

    Tanner and her cardigan, I did not say the photograph was taken from May 3rd...I am pointing out Tanner had a cardigan with her on the trip. Nothing more or less just an observation.

    I also at first glance thought this was an old snap of Tanner with Madeleine.

    Wilkins saw Tanner in a purple dress...Tanner states she wore cut off slacks...who is telling the truth and who is not?

    The weather it seems according to Tanner a cold week and yet we have Kate in her statement saying Madeleine had sunburn marks on her right forearm.

    The waiter noticed when everyone had left the table , including Webster...he noticed coats and jackets had been left behind.

    Tanner said on leaving her apartment she heard Madeleine was missing...this is the first she had heard..Therefore, by her own admission, Tanner was NOT at the table when Kate raised the alarm but in her apartment looking after her sick child...sick or sedated? now thats a loaded question.

  12. The McCann documentary.
    Kate in Rothley is calling Jane (fabricated?) and Gerry and Jane in PdL remember the scene differently. It looks as if one way or another the McCanns have power over Tanner.

  13. Lets go one step further Dave Edgar said Tanner may have been mistaken it could have even been a woman...Edgar also told Tanner it was of little importance where Wilkins and McCann stood.

    Why did Kate say in her statement the man Tanner saw she thinks was wearing jeans when Tanner said beige pants?

  14. Quote

    With many thanks to Pamalam she has all photographs of Tapas and McCanns.

    So where did this little beauty come from...Anyone seen a photograph of Tanner before or after in the newspaper????

    It seems 'jeans' were on peoples minds...McCann was wearing them, Kate said she thinks the abducor was wearing them and Tanner did not take any on holiday with her.


    Oh I’m sidetracking a bit, but that’s why I knew one of the pictures in the paper wasn’t from the holiday, because I hadn’t got jeans on the holiday with me, so.

  15. http://primewriter.com/news-1246-headlines/?p=7702

    A moment to reflect on another missing child Kyron Horman and the last person to see him alive...his stepmother.

    Tanner and her uses, she gave McCann an alibi by seeing the abductor together at the same time proving in her small mind or whose ever idea it was they could not be the same person..BUT one thing she did not do is say she saw a moving Madeleine...is this why Mccann always states we know she was alive when she left the apartment.

    It would have been much better for Tanner to have said she saw a child struggling in the arms of a man...more telling , the child was alive...but she did not say this on Panorama only what she saw...

  16. According to Tanner it was chilly weather, need for some covering up(no pun intended), and yet, gerry said that Madeleine slept on the covers, because of the heat! Go figure! It seems like they were holidaying somewhere else than Tanner...

  17. Of course that scene of Kate calling Tanner in the "mockumentary" is staged! Poor little kate telling Jane "you are braver than me, you're going down there", aaarrrgh! Stupid, despicable woman!
    And also staged was the "disagreement" between Tanner and Gerry as to who was where, there's no way in hell they would go down to the Algarve to shoot their version of events without a carefully planned script! No way would Gerry risk any surprises from Tanner or Oldfield, and there was always the possibility of editing any inconvenient parts, which, come to think of it, they did...with Kate's scenes, played by Lisa Donovan, brought all the way from the States for nothing!
    Gerry absolutely had to address the dispute/ discrepances about his testimony and those of Tanner and Wilkins, he knew that lots of people had read the files and knew about the differences, he just could not let it go un-mentioned. He just dealt with it his own way, serving his own purposes with the help of his police-expert pal Dave Edgar.
    The same happened with the Smith family sighting, it could not be ignored, it had to be addressed, but with a twist...

  18. Yes and Kate said she was under the covers. No one ever said they saw the window open by the way, McCann said he closed it so the twins would not get cold.

    I do not believe this story either about them not raising the blinds all week...The McCanns did something to the blinds in the room they slept in as they had to ask for them to be repaired. What were they doing to break a blind? swinging on them?...no pun intended.

  19. Just look at that picture of Gerry and Kate, with the lantern! It's one of the very few were they look positivelly scared stiff! They do look bad indeed, almost like TRUE parents of an abducted child! It was taken within those (in)famous 48hours span of time, which seem to be crucial in some way... they said they were almost non-functioning in the first 48hours, couldn't sleep, etc., but then it was o.k.! What on earth did they mean by this?!
    And the lantern? why the need for a lantern two days after the event? It's not like they were photographed in the "wilderness" around Luz, looking for their daughter. They were outside a building of the Ocean Club! Unless there was a power cut at that time...or showing the world and the critics that they were indeed physically searching for Madeleine, "Look, Gerry must be on his way to do some searching, he even has got a flashlight!"

  20. Within 48 hours the last meal and time of death are easy to pin point.

    I think it would have been discovered Maddies last meal was not milk and cookies but what ever she ate at the creche. Kate would have had some explaining to do.

  21. Have some laughs, courtesy of the incomparably stupid Antonella Lazzery:


    An email exchange between the "Queen of lame and biased reports" and a reader (an ex-cop).
    If we ever needed proof of that woman's stupidity...

  22. http://www.ceop.police.uk/annualreview.asp

    CEOP release latest figures. Problem is with Gamble at the helm why do I not believe them?????

  23. http://blamegrandma.blogspot.com/2010/02/madeleine-mccann-her-disappearance-and.html

    The McCanns have always blamed everyone but themselves...It seems it was grandmas fault after all.

  24. I keep on the same bag:

    - Kate story about Madeleine complaint " Why don't you or daddy came yesterday when I and Sean cried?"

    -The Smiths sight.

    -Gerry blue bag pictured by GNR and which magically disappeared.

    They were all made by Mccann's in propose to fit an abduction and actions done by an abductor. This is why they don't preserve the crime scene allowing everybody to come in and contaminate the scene. What went wrong on their plan was the absence of evidences grabbed by the police to put inside the scene a strange person. If ADN of a stranger was found in the flat, then their plan will be working 100%. The blue bag will be very convennient on that case with Gerry claimin that the bag was stollen by the abductor or somebody working wth him during the messy time of people going out and in of the flat searching for Madeleine. And because he/she was a strange to the group, they don't know him or remember all the faces. Unfortunnatly for their plan, no stranger ADN or fingerprints found, then Gerry have to avoid the blue bag.
    Madeleine complaint is important in many ways: made Madeleine alive on May 3, support their negligence story and the statement of their neighbour and if the police buyed the abduction story will be very convennient the idea of placing the abductor inside the flat, a night or nihts before May 3, scaring and waking -up the childs.

  25. Interesting, if the weather was not so nice and it was cloudly, then the last picture of Madeleine around the pool was another fabrication. An old picture manipulated and this is why came out only after Gerry first trip to UK. On that picture we can see that the day was sunny and hot, not fitting the weather description for that May 3.
    So many reasons to reopen the case and bring it to where belongs to- the court.

  26. The "flashlight" photo of the McCanns is fascinating. I agree they look terrified (and guilty).

    Also, in this photo, Kate's thumb looks darkly bruised but perhaps it is simply the lighting.

    I've always felt the bruises have a story to tell all on their own...and have analysed many of the photos, focusing on the hands, wrists and arms of both McCanns.

    The bruises on Kate's wrist and arms were discussed at length on many forums, and have never been adequately explained, IMO.

  27. The Flashlight to me is a prop, like Kate used Cuddle Cat...neither meant anything. The most amusing, Gerry on the two following nights photographs with different flashlights.

    The meaning ? he had searched all through the night and ran out of battery?

    We of course know the Mccanns did not search, they admit the first 48 hours were the worst and they could not function.

    Fiona explained her best friend Kates bruises, she had been punching and kicking the wall.

    LOOK closer no bruises on Kates knuckles but many on her arms and above her right eye...Someone being grabbed and told to pull themselves together?

  28. ANON 6.01

    Kate in her statement May 4th said Madeleine had a sunburn mark on her right upper forearm.

    When a child is sunburnt it is in other areas also unless Madeleine had her arm only in the sun and the rest of her in the shade.

    Why did Kate mention this at all..maybe to suggest the photo and Madeleine sitting in the sun. The same as the bead...in this photograph Madeleine has a bead in her hair.

    Kate liked to talk about this bead. Kate is very clever with her words , she can place the children where and how she likes ,does not mean they were there.

  29. http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1ALXNj/aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/police-believe-madeleine-mccann-murdered-at-home-not-kidnapped//r:t

    Information from 2007...

    Mrs Fenn only heard ONE child cry.

    If all the children were together except Madeleine because of her sleeping disorder...Murats lawyers words make some sense...

    Francisco Pagarete...blamed the McCanns for leaving Madeleine alone...he does not say THEY left the children alone.

  30. http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/319GU9/www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw-Pd5eaDyc/r:t

    'We believe Madeleine was alive when she was abducted..or encouraged to believe this.'

  31. Hi Ironside,
    The idea of Madeleine left alone make sense if we remember the way GNR described the twins in the cots- They were in the cots without bed-sheets or blankets in a cold night. Looks like that they were somewhere out of the room or the flat and came there just before the alarm was raised. No evidences of Madeleine in the bed. That means she did not sleep on that bed, that night.


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.