Saturday, 18 September 2010

To Be Or Not To Be Even A Question

About the SMITH SIGHTING and the McSTROLLER, I’ve, just like Sitting Bull at Little Big Horn, methodically placed Custer and his men in their last stand position.

In this case, they are surrounded not by Indians, but by what logic and facts have shown us, and that I’ve only limited myself to relay to you.

They’ve just been caught up by all the traps setup by their own successive mistakes and lies.

Now having nothing to win but all to lose, they still put up a fight. I would expect no less.

Out of desperation, not heroism, and much less, as is obvious, of reason.

What are their last pieces of “ammo” on this issue? I seem to have picked up only two: the public knowledge of the sighting and the possible recognition of GERRY McCANN by others.

The first I honestly cannot see the logic, but I’ll make a real effort to understand, because only whatever you grasp can you contradict. I might even write something about it, once I comprehend it.

About recognition, the version only defended by “abduction-purists”, states that it couldn’t possibly be GERRY McCANN because that would be an enormous risk of being recognized when seen walking around with a child in the middle of PdL that he would be intelligent enough not to take.

Now, for argument’s sake only, and pretending to forget all I’ve written before, I can only see the following scenarios for that particular man being in that particular time and place.

(a) a father walking with a sleeping child from somewhere to somewhere else, a perfectly innocent scenario;

(b) the ABDUCTOR, carrying a sleeping MADDIE to somewhere undetermined;  

(c) GERRY McCANN, carrying a dead MADDIE to a “safe” hide-out, be it a sewer, the church or some "safe-house";  

(d) GERRY McCANN, carrying a sleeping child to be intentionally be seen so that later an abductor would be reported to have been seen.

This post is about proving if it was or was not GERRY McCANN just due to the fact that he wouldn’t run the risk of being recognized, so we can discard scenarios (a) and (b) because they simply DON’T involve GERRY McCANN.

By the way, in previous posts, I’ve PROVED that both these scenarios, (a) and (b) , are completely ludicrous, to use a familiar expression.

We’re left then with GERRY McCANN with either a dead or a sleeping child in his arms.

Let’s start with a dead MADDIE. This thesis in effect does portray a real risk for GERRY McCANN which I believe he wouldn’t run, for something could happen that would expose, not him, but the fact he was holding a CORPSE.

Yes, I believe that GERRY McCANN did carry MADDIE’S corpse that night, but to a much short distance, and not all the way to the Rua da Escola Primária.

No, he wouldn’t, HE COULDN’T, possibly risk THAT.

So, stating that that it wasn’t GERRY McCANN disposing the body because of risk, you’re, in my opinion, absolutely right.

However, you’re just reinforcing one certainty, and that is not that it wasn’t GERRY McCANN there and then, BUT, and that is very important, that there was NO CORPSE in that particular place and time.

Lastly is that GERRY McCANN supposedly WOULDN’T WALK around PdL with a sedated child for fear of recognition.

I ask you, from exactly who did he fear to be recognized by?

For all we know, and as I’ve said before, it appears that, of all the TAPAS 9, especially the McCANNS lived in a state of closure, like monks, inside the OCEAN CLUB. Tennis, then tennis, and tennis after that.

Inside the OCEAN CLUB.

Breakfast in the Apartment, créche, tennis, créche, TAPAS and bed. All inside the OCEAN CLUB. ONE, and ONLY ONE trip to the beach.

Some jogging, yes, but is that enough to fear recognition in a strange town in a strange country?

By whom, I ask again? It’s like me not going to TRAFALGAR SQUARE for fear of being recognized, just because I was there once or twice.

ALL who those that could recognize him, were, we’re told, having dinner with him, and the ONLY person that wasn’t with him at the table that could recognize him, DID so, on the street that night: JEZ WILKINS, his so “close” tennis buddy.

Who else? The waiters? You mean those that could only vaguely remember that the group were “8 or 9”? (I haven’t gone back to the files on this, so if the numbers are incorrect, I apologise, but the idea is the vagueness with which all described the number of the TAPAS at TAPAS).  

NAJOUA? Wasn’t she working at the time? If she wasn’t, was she really a risk? Let me tell you in advance, that no, she wasn’t, for I’ll PROVE, in another post, that she never sat at the TAPAS table that she has said she did.

Oh, but say you, YOU, Textusa, have said that he, GERRY McCANN DID KNOW very well the “PDL RED DISTRICT”, aka the "KELLY’S TRIANGLE", and could then be recognized by someone from there.

True. And not true.

I think I’ve answered this in some comment somewhere before. Let's not forget he holds the iniciative. He decides to do it, so he decides the terms by which he does it. He is in control of the situation. He knows he wants to be seen, so controls as much as is possible, how and where he’ll be seen.

He’ll act accordingly and provoke being seen just as a passer-by, as happened with the Smiths, although, in his anxiety to be seen, he exaggerated this contact, as we've seen.

You, come back and say, what if he literally bumped into one of his drinking buddies from CHAPLINS or KELLY’s? Now, that COULD happen and THAT would be a REAL risk, wouldn’t it?

No, it wouldn’t. Why would it? It would ONLY be a risk if he carrying a CORPSE, and we’ve covered that.

If he was carrying a sedated, apparently sleeping, child what risk is really there? None whatsoever.

And I’ll prove it by using JEZ WILKINS. Nobody has ever hinted, suggested or even thought that the child in the stroller that WILKINS walked around wasn’t his.

We have no reason to think otherwise. For the same reason, somebody bumping into GERRY McCANN with a blonde girl sleeping on his shoulder has no reason not to think that it isn’t MADDIE, even if it isn’t.

So if GERRY McCANN was stopped by anyone who happened to know him, and he couldn’t possibly avoid the contact, then the storyline would just simply have to changed into a GERRY McCANN, a caring father, walking his daughter around to help her fall asleep.

He has stated many times that he had no stroller like WILKINS and the child was even dressed in her pyjamas, to help confirm the version.

Later, after such a loving, caring, and PROUD father would have put his daughter to bed, an evil abductor who that had followed him… you get the picture.

Remember, the script was forcibly changed TWICE that night.

First, with the WILKINS encounter and second with KATE's premature alarm.

Please do NOT counter-argument that KATE gave the alarm at THAT time which would mean that he would be talking somewhere with somebody while his wife was crying ABDUCTION somewhere else. Besides going into fantasy world, KATE’s alarm was unplanned, and it was what messed everything up.

I do believe that there’s some description of a fuming mad GERRY McCANN seen soon after the referred alarm, and it was not because his daughter was abducted…

Anger, an odd behavior for someone that soon later would show to be so fragile by throwing himself on the ground, apparently in despair, not once but twice.

If anyone supposedly proved to have been angry that night, it was KATE, and so much so that she smashed the walls so hard that she had bruises the next day.

Anyway, a parent, any parent, knowing that his daughter has just disappeared does NOT react in anger, but in anguish, in desperate urgency to find her.

Anger only comes later, much later.

But we know that these particular parents have absolutely abnormal reactions to everything. From reporters to nappies. Everything. Fine, fine, you say, BUT isn’t it ridiculous for him to be walking around PdL, to be seen, knowing that the next day his face would be all over the papers, and could then be easily identified by whoever saw him?

THAT is the desperate question you’ve so dearly held to, hoping that it would get you off the hook.

Sorry, it doesn’t. First, he has no way of knowing the proportion the whole thing will take.

Yes, they’re bringing in the Press, but NO ONE could imagine then and there that it would become the worldwide phenomenon it became.

And even then, people’s attention was drawn to MADDIE’s face, not her parents.

Second, I ask you to remember who you saw yesterday. Say at 18:30, or at 11:45. Not so clear now is it?

Now continue the exercise by, at a place where you were at that time yesterday, imagining that a crime has happened that you WEREN’T AWARE OF HAVING HAPPENED.

Could you describe anyone that was there with precision, with the exception of those that are familiar to you?

No, you can’t. If you say you can, you’re lying.

You wouldn’t be able to point anyone out even if they were put in a line-up in front of you today. Mr SMITH, when he saw GERRY McCANN was far from knowing he was being a key witness to a crime.

Thirdly, as reality as proven, Mr. SMITH gives only 60% to 80% certainty that it was GERRY McCANN.

Perfectly natural, as per said above. He had seen his face, like all of us, a thousand times, but his memory was triggered by the way the child was carried, not by GERRY McCANN’s face.

That only came after his memory had been jolted.

So, if on May 4th, Mr. SMITH would have come forward, as expected, with the whole world so sympathetic with the McCANNs, he would only be able to give a vague description of GERRY McCANN, and NOBODY, would be able to link the two together.

Add to that a GERRY McCANN’s “iron-clad” alibi provided by other so many witnesses (not only his 8 "friends", who, three years past seem to so much apart) of him being seen dining with buddies, then, I have no doubt about it, you would have the whole wide world chasing one Caucasian 30-40 year old “average Joe” (so very similar to GERRY McCANN), that went night sailing with a four year-old.

And if, and I’m only supposing now, Mr. SMITH did come forward when he was supposed to, I’m sure Dr. GERRY McCANN would have to be present somewhere else, and Mr. SMITH would appear before the media besides such a sad KATE and her such so supportive friends…

So, I ask again, what risks were there to make GERRY McCANN to avoid walking around, fully intended on being seen with a barefooted blond four year old in pyjamas in his arms?

None whatsoever.

Once you understand THAT, then many other things will start to make sense.

You’ll understand why I believe that there’s a reason for O’BRIEN and TANNER to be the most active TAPAS friends that night.

You’ll understand why I believe that TANNER does see WILKINS and McCANN talking, but is not seen by either.

You’ll understand why I believe that TANNER does see the “abductor” EXACTLY the way (with just the difference of from where she sees) in which she describes.

You’ll understand why I believe that there’s a reason for the McCANNS to say that the bed where MADDIE slept was one that she never slept in.

You’ll understand why I believe that there’s a reason for the famous blue bag to have disappeared from sight that night.

You’ll understand why I believe that there’s a reason for TANNER saying she did not bring any jeans to this particular holiday.

You’ll understand why I believe that there’s a reason for two adults, KATE and GERRY McCANN to throw tantrums like children in a grocery store.

You’ll understand why I believe that there’s a reason for the twins to be in sheetless cots and not wake up that evening.

You’ll understand why I believe that there’s a reason for no other TAPAS child to wake up. Have you noticed this? Although all the commotion around the OCEAN CLUB, no other TAPAS child wakes up. Not one a single one. All of them have one peaceful, heavenly night.

Except one that didn’t make it into such late hours.

You’ll understand that why I believe that there’s a reason for so many other things.

And things ONLY make sense, when they make sense.


  1. O' Brien was the connection between G. Mccann and a 10 person on that Saga. He knows PDL. He use to came there and had some friends related with Surf( reported in portuguese papers at the beguinning and quickly silenced). He, like the all Tapas, had his childs sedated on the same way, then had do do whatever was need to help Gerry and avoid troubles with a death child and the police checking all the childs to understand not the cause of the dead but why was she sedated? If the police found all the childs sedated, the crime change into a programed crime, planned. Into what is called 'with dolo'. A very serious crime and not an accident. Then O'Brien had to use all his connections and brain to solve the situation. Tanner was on the same boat. Somebody in PDL knows the Person 10. I believe, somebody from the British community knows the all story and is helping the cover-up and playing a disgraceful rol on Madeleine's tragedy. That person need courage to show-up and break the story. How can she/he live with such crime?
    When the Mccann's went to Lisbon last time, they hurry to run to PDL. The excuse was to come close to Madeleine(the place) and to visit friends. I believe, yes, they came close to Madeleine but their first issue was to show up to that 10 person and continue intimidating ( with help of their lawyers) that person to keep the mouth close.
    By the way, a British man was found last week, burned in a car near Faro. Not completly understandable the way the things hapenned, but PJ believe it wasa suicide due to a crime commited in UK. Who knows, if he was related with Madeleine secrets? Mccann's seems to know and be connected with several evil guys in UK. Their detectives team show us that.

  2. What excuses will they find next to say it wasn't Gerry?

    Justice has been miserviced to an unbelievable level. And we talk about Middle Ages?!?

  3. The blue bag could be used not to carry Madeleine, but Gerry clothes and all the evidences related with the girl last moments or even, last day. I go even further by suspecting that all used and dirty clothes of Madeleine were carried away on the early morning of May 4. That can explain what Amaral written on his book" A bath towel was what Kate gave to the police to be used by GNR dogs to search Madeleine". Why not her last wearing clothes, since Mccann's want police to believe she disappeared wearing a pyjama?
    Madeleine ADN was recovered from a pillowcase. Again no Madeleine clothes. When Kate and Gerry invited Krugel( the Sud African ) they ask somebody in UK to went to their house and check something belonging to Madeleine to be sent to Krugel. Why not clothes from the girl in PDL? What this clothes could be holding and revealing? Evidences of a child abused? evidences of sedatives or other substances? evidences of death and I believe something more, which involve all the other Tapas friends and the behaviour of the group.

  4. Anon 10:19

    Nice comment! It’s so gratifying when one sees that one is getting the message across! Thank you.

    Agree with most of your comment, may have to look deeper into other things you say, like sedation on all her clothes (as first reaction I think rather that they washed it all, except that that was in the blue bag which was what she was wearing at the time of her death, and probably thought no sample could be taken from freshly washed clothing, but this, as I said, is written without thinking it out) and disagree with child-abuse. Evidence, including the Gaspar statement, indicates more towards sexual activity between adults rather anything with children. At PdL, in April/May 2007 at least.

    Once again, heartfelt thanks

  5. The McCanns must really hate you

  6. About all the clothes that Madeleine wore being taken away in the blue bag...only a small detail, not all the clothes, it seems...what about the top(red T-shirt?)that the sniffer dogs allerted to? The one that the dog detected as having cadaver odour? How/why did the McCanns leave that one behind?...a careless mistake?...

  7. Mccann's hate everybody who did not buy their stories, specially when they cannot get a golden feedback- MONEY.
    BTW, no shadows of the fervorous catholic couple around the Pope in UK. Is the A."Liezzeri" and their greater supporter "The Sun" going to made their brains to work and do a simple equation 2+2=4?

  8. Any idea the relevance of Kate's claim that she saw something that looked like tea stain on Maddie's pyjamas on the morning of May 3 IIRC and then proceeded to wash it? What a strange "revelation"!


  9. Sad as it is for me to say, I cannot rule out sexual abuse. The Gaspars statements has little or no bearing in my thinking. It's the fact that the McCanns insisted right from the beginning that she was taken by paedos and then went on to advertise her eye defect against professional advice that makes me suspicious.


  10. Agree. Gerry walked in PDL streets with purpose to be seen. He knows there is little risk for him to be recognised by somebody. He arrived on 28 April afternoon and the girl disappeared on May 3, 5 days since they arrive. Too short for any abductor to mark Madeleine and too short for somebody to know him outside the OC and the supermarket around the OC. Specially because he don't walk too much out of the OC. Even the jogging before May 3 seems for me a made up story, not the reality. The jogging came conveniently after May 3 to distract the Media and allow them to go to some places without raising many suspections.
    Less people know him or Madeleine. I believe most of the OC workers did not know them and even this people were not able to recognise him.
    Interesting also is the streets he choose to walk in. Why not a quite street in PDL where local portuguese live? Why walking on the streets used by tourists to go to bares and night Clubs? He had been there before and knows that at that time of the year PDL was not busy with tourists and at that time of the night, most of the tourists were busy in the bares, then the streets must be "almost" empty. "Almost" means a high chance to be seen just by few persons or just by one person and a high chance to be seen by somebody who never bump on him before. And if that person by any chance came forward next days to connect the sight with him, he always could use his friends as an alibi to destroy the statement of the person. That was what I believe, Gerry planned.
    What went wrong that night?
    -Gerry have been seen by a group ( too big for his intentions) and not a single person.
    -Somebody from the group talk to him, trying to be kind.
    - Nobody came forward on the next days to give life to their fantastic abduction story.
    -Who saw him recognise the situation( the way the man carried the child) and was able to describe it to the police, many months after. That means that for the Smiths, something was odd on what they have seen? the condition of the child? the direction the man walked, from the quite town into the busy night with a sleeping child? Normally parents carrying a sleeping child walk from bares to houses, not the opposite. That can stay in people memory for long time, even without remembering faces with detail.

  11. I have never left a comment on your site before,but today,I feel you have "answered" some of the many questions I couldn,t quite work out myself,so thanks for helping my poor old brain come to some better understanding of this whole fiasco!!!The blue bag,s disappearance never ever imo got the police attention it warranted,but nor did so many other questions raised,but never fully explained !!!Just a silly thought,but does anyone know if the Macaans managed another "stunt" with the Pope???? Thanks for your brilliant posts,I certainly missed you when you mysteriously "dissappeared".

  12. Anon 10:19

    Apologise for a rather rushed answer, as I obviuosly stated something completely ridiculous: Maddie's clothes in the blue bag. Obviously Maddie was not acrried naked, and the clothes in which she died in, most likely stayed on her body until it was disposed of.

    We cannot discard the possibility of soemwhere in time, for a question of dignity, her clothes having been changed, the same way her body laid with the green rag doll by her side.

    In the blue bag were (are) all the clothes of the people who helped clean up the mess. Two likely items in that bag are the Gerry's beige pants and Jane's jeans. As well as rags, towels or whatever was used to clean up the mess that evening.

    In it also, probably all the cleaning products they went to buy in Baptista, that they bought shortly after the ocurrence of Maddie's death, which they justified with a New Zealand wine bottle (no, there's no mention of this trip, but I'll handle this issue later also).

    The thourough cleaning came afterwards. As we know they were allowed to stay in the apartment that night, and at least (I'm not sure here) the next day.


    Haven't looked at the clothing evidence yet. The only relevant find, for me at this point, is that of Kate's pants and CC. But promise when the time comes, will see how that piece fits into the puzzle.

    Respect and understand your disagreement about sexual abuse the McCanns insistence right from the beginning that she was taken by paedos was just the adequate excuse to bring CEOP right into the case from the start, nothing else.

    About the eye defect, another parenthood abnormality, well, they knew no more harm could come to her didn't they? It was a good marketing ploy to get the whole hoax going and they had to explore that fact.

    Thanks for all the comments

  13. CEOP's invovement is another matter comment on which I'll save for another day. Suffice to say I'm not moved by the argument that the paedo claim was to bring Jim Gamble on board.


  14. Tanner and O'Brien may be the key for that business afternoon/night. I wonder why Murat is only acting judiciary against Jane? Is he having extra ans secret help from the police? I always thought that Madeleine case would be sort it out solving a paralleled case (also related with)

    I guess I know what has happened on May 3rd? What I do not see clearly is what time Madeleine was taken from the apartment and taken directly to and where? She was kept in a fridge, water was found in the rented car twenty three our four days after she vanished. I've calculated the distance between PdL and Huelva, it's too far, too risky to take a corpse in warm day. I only see two solutions to make her vanish for good: a crematory - and they would need a good help from someone linked to these ritual procedures or ... she is buried in PdL as Kate told to the Inspector by phone when she had a revelation dream... if the second choice is the answer they've made a huge mistake and that's why they keep coming to PdL.... to make sure they have all under control.

    I do feel sorry about GA Inspector, how his life has changed because in was in charge ... my only consolation is to imagine the hell McCann's life became. There is no money enough in the Fund or in the world to keep them safe from a huge condemnation trial due the number of crimes in this package since 2007 ...

    I know McCanns marriage are spent and they are living hard days because they have a lot more to loose because almost everybody knows (apart from a detail or two) what really happened to Madeleine McCann...specially the police knows...which is hard for a couple thinking they may be caught if any one breaks down and tell...

    It's a question of's a question of time ... it is a heavy matter to carry on...carry on...

  15. Agree Textusa. Madeleine was carried away with her last wearing clothes. On my previous post I was talking about other dirty clothes from her and from all the childs( if we considere sedation hapenning every night to keep the childs quite and sleeping. They are doctors, then they know that any substance gave to a child can stay on his/her unwashed clothes, trough saliva, sweatting or urine. They have to get ride of them with all the washing stuf and adults contaminated clothes.
    Yes, Mccann's stayed on the flat that night and have not been seen searching their girl untill early morning when somebody saw Gerry and Payne out( maybe getting ride of the bag). It was reported on the files that Gerry and Payne activate mobile antenes in very isolated places in PDL, at the same time. Taking in account that the Tapas 7 rushed out of PDL few days after Madeleine disappearence and in the middle time they had to answer questions in places and time choosed by the police ( for " memoria futura") the phone calls or sms must hapenned before the police got in touch with them. Unless Payne went back to PDL later.
    About the red Tshirt with cadaverine. Kate said it belongs to Sean. Could be true. Since there is no perfect crimes, that Tshirt could be left due to the panic of the situation or the amount of people involved in the cleaning up ( more then one person dealing with a crime and the crime scene is too much, then high risk for something to fail or went out of control). I don't believe Madeleine wear that Tshirt but I believe she died close to her brothers, out of the bed they claim she was sleeping in. I don't know if cadaverine could be transfered from one person into the clothes of others. I think yes. Then Sean could be close to Madeleine (remember what the cleaner of the flat said in the Front Line program about the beds on wednesday May 2. They changed the places of the childs beds for May 3. Why?). Madeleine died before the evening of May 3 and they had time to change the crime scene and move the twins without paying too much attention for some details. For me the red Tshirt was that detail they forgot and a mistake out of their control because they don't know about the dogs and what the dogs could find. To be honest, I think the all group was quite confident that portuguese police will buy their abduction story and will leave them in peace to build more stories and play the victims rol. Soon they realise that that assumption was a mistake and the nonsense started with Madeleine eye defect bring to the Media, their jogging, their Tenis games, their tourist trips to the church. All to divert attention from the real crime and keep the Media and the police busy. If they keep the Media busy, the Media will keep the police busy asking questions, making up stories and disturbing.

  16. If you look at the way the whole group viewed their children, ie leaving a sick baby who had been sick and had the runs, ignoring the pleas of M about not coming when they cried, it shows they all viewed their children in an abnormal way, i do believe this whole case is about child abuse, it explains why nobody has broken their silence, it explains why they got the support they did right from the start, and as for CEOPs involvement, from someone who has worked in this area i can assure you paedos have their links everywhere, if you want to find a paedo just look anywhere that has children, how do we know that JG isnt in the position he is in in order to check nobody gets to close, in the same way that a serial killer will often try to get closely involved in the investigation. You will even find paedos working in child services. You only have to know about operation Ore to know that certain people weren't investigated but were protected, and who worked on op Ore, none other than Jim Gamble. As for the Gaspars statements i believe they were accurate, in this day and age even innocent parents are uncomfortable bathing their own children, so for the men on that holiday in Majorca to bath the group of children it is not normal. There are many links with this to Jersey and its not just the rubbishing of the dogs involved in both cases. Why do people find it hard to believe sexual abuse of children is the link, i can tell you why, because we just dont want to, its too distressing, i can tell you this is part of the reason it thrives, its not just about secrecy, we just as normal decent humans dont want to believe it. Once you get your head round that you can see why D P has never tried to sue anyone for what is said about him all over the internet. If this case isnt solved in the next couple of years it will be once the children involved are old enough to speak out.

  17. Why did Oldfield mention his jog with Kate in his statement? Rachael was supposedly ill in their apartment. Why not stay and look after her and the children?
    Why menition this at all?

  18. Anon @ 12:13,

    Nice Post but I don't believe on the story told by Kate about Madeleine saying 'Why don't you come when I and Sean cried last night?'
    When we look into the all available files we can see that as a huge fabrication from Kate or the all group, under the pressure of what was printed in the Media and the doubts they raise in the police, most probably with intention to:

    - Keep Madeleine alive on the morning of May 3.
    - support the idea of an abductor who surrounded already the flat and the childs before the fatidic night.
    - To justify the statement made by their neighbour, who told the police about Madeleine crying for one hour.

    A child with 4 years old never set up a conversation like the one Kate sold to the Media. And she, as a doctor must know that. That reveals the desperation of the group and very poor skills from Kate, as a doctor.
    BTW, I think( not sure) that the night she referes Madeleine cried, was the same night that Kate went to the flat in a mad way with Gerry (due to the Quizz lady) and she slept in a different room. Then, when Madeleine cried,Kate was there with her. Was Kate the reason why she cried? Was that the night Madeleine died? If so, I start understanding why the police always suspected Kate, more then her husband on the death of Madeleine.

  19. Textusa - another interesting angle - thank you.


    I agree with your post.......

    But I honestly think that all the stuff G and K have told us in interviews and all the Tapas7 have told the Police - their statements, the changes to their statements , who was doing what, when and with whom, is just to confuse and disrupt the whole investigation. And that lies and obliterating of as much of any possible evidence to prove anything either way was used for one purpose and one only - to cover up the fact that Madeleine died in apartment 5a. - just as GA has said. And that the sighting by the Smiths and the Gaspars statements all contribute to the mix - though I agree these are true statements. Why would they need to make up these facts - they have no connection.

    I agree that you would remember the way someone was holding a child maybe some time after the fact. You would not remember the face immediately - only vague things.

    Yes - the McCanns and Tapas7 still have to carry on until defeated - one wonders how long they will hold out. It's already showing on Kate and on Gerry because his face contorts into even a more unattractive sneer every-time he's photographed.
    They are beginning to look exhausted and I can imagine they will continue to deny, deny, deny until they eventually have no breath left.....

    GA said that was what he was waiting for - for one of them to break cover!



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.