The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Textusa. Taking Candy From Babies

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Textusa. Taking Candy From Babies

Post by justagrannynow 1 on 09.05.10 10:11

Taking Candy From Babies

Let’s revisit Gerry’s statement to PJ on May 10th, 2007:

"----- Pertaining to the routine, on
Tuesday there was a slight change given that after lunch, at 13h30, he
and KATE decided to take the three children to Paris da Luz, having gone
on foot, taking only the twins in baby carriages. They all left by the
main door due to the carriages, went around to the right, down the
street of the supermarket and went to the beach along a road directly
----- They were at the beach for about 20 minutes, the
deponent and MADELEINE having paddled in the water. During this time the
weather changed with a cloudy sky and cold, they went to an esplanade
of a cafe next to the beach, on the left, where they bought five
ice-creams and two drinks. Asked, he said that at that place there was
an individual playing Latin music on a guitar to whom he intended to
give some coins, but having none at the time, he didn't. That
the individual had a neglected and careless appearance, unshaven and
somewhat shabby [raggedy]
. He was Caucasian, 175cm tall, thin,
70 to 75kg in weight, dark, short hair, almost shaven-headed with grey
sides, and not wearing glasses. Wearing a light brown-coloured 'kispo',
with a hood at the back, and dark cotton trousers, not noticing the
footwear. He said that he never behaved strangely, nor
approached or looked at the children in an ostensible
[deliberate/menacing] manner
. On returning they left the
children at their creches, as usual, the parents having gone to play
tennis or went jogging."

The only FACT about a LIE is
that it’s FICTION. If it were fact then it would be the truth.

when a liar lies, he does it for a reason. No, I’m not quoting La

The first reason, THE obvious one, is to hide the truth.
But for that silence suffices.

If you don’t say it, the other
won’t know it. That simple; and that’s for that that secrets were

But if you say a word, only one, you’re doing more than
hiding the truth.

Sometimes, as we'll see, you don't have to
speak, to lie.

Also, you may speak only the truth and still lie.
For example, when all you say is true but you simply just don’t say it

A half-truth is a lie because you’re hiding part of the
reality, usually that which is unpleasant to you.

When you’re
affected by this selective “forgetfulness” in telling something, you’re
hiding THAT particular part of reality behind a mask of another, now
fabricated “reality”, thus misleading the listener.

MISLEADING is ALL that lying is about. It allows the LIAR, by own
initiative, to escape either the accountability of his actions or the
misery of his reality.

This escape is his ulterior objective.
Have this in mind when analyzing a lie.

It’s easier to catch a
LIAR than it is to catch a limping man, so say the Portuguese, but
sometimes we fail to understand the why. And many other lies escape from
our detection this way.

So lying is much more than just hiding
the truth, it’s making the other believe in something completely
different in a manner such that, for the listener, it is truth.

way he envisions it, or better yet, the way the LIAR made him envision

Why is this important?

Because then you can understand
that a LIAR has ALWAYS a message to convey. And that message is the EXACT
image of events that he wants you to create in your mind.

someone has to control something then a continuous confirmation
of the intended effect is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

if you don’t follow the story adequately you’ll miss the punchline
altogether. If you don’t follow the script, you’re being an actor in
another play… so the LIAR must assure that the listener is following it

The only way a LIAR can do that is to feed
you with what he thinks to be the adequate and relevant details that
will enable you to construct the intended image.

This is where
fiction comes in. The process by which the liar attempts in making you
create, in your mind, THE exact, not A, copy of something that he’s just
created, but is non-existent, but in the mind of the LIAR.

the LIAR there’s always the risk of misconstruction, as a result of the
listener NOT capturing either the adequate details or the details

The details MUST get got right. No
buts or ifs. They HAVE to be right.

How does he
go about that? He rams them down your throat, that’s
what. Not a very subtle procedure, but an effective one.

why “The Stroller” walked those extra yards to make sure he was seen by
the Smiths.

If he had turned on the FIRST or SECOND
opportunities that he had (the expected and wise behavior if he was
doing what he pretending to do) the family could have missed him
altogether. Then there would be nobody to then report having seen “The
Abductor”, and the stroll would then become just an useless exercise.

also why he also didn’t turn on his THIRD opportunity because in his
mind he needed to feed in that extra detail that the
family might not have captured adequately: the direction to where he
wanted them to believe that he was heading to.

That’s why he forced
the contact the way he did. He was ramming the details down the Smith’s
collective throats.

Here you have a perfect example of someone
lying without saying a word, just misleading by action.

And for
the same reason that “The Stroller” lied, so did Gerry McCann about the
beach trip.

He needed to ram down "a detail" down our collective

He had to create a menacing character as well as the
moment this evil man took the decision to abduct his daughter. In his
mind he simply couldn’t risk that the Portuguese cops
to be intelligent enough to create that scenario just out of the Kid’s
Club beach trips. By the way, they did look into that scenario, proved
by the photographing the "creche path", as per PJ files.

No, he
had to be SURE the investigators got someone
that although “never
behaved strangely, nor approached or looked at the children in an
ostensible [deliberate/menacing] manner
”, he did
a neglected and
careless appearance, unshaven and somewhat shabby [raggedy]

hearing these words, do you or don’t you feel that that man is a
suspect to be investigated?

You do. I do.

The “never” is a technique that I
call confirmation by denial. Be the exagerated emphasis of the opposite,
a seed of suspicion is planted, which is then watered by the
description of expected details that fit like a glove to whomever you
wish to incriminate. Very much used by children, and why they're catched
lying so easily. When you exagerate, well... you exagerate.

the case of the McCanns, it worked so well that the man who "never", is
not still a suspect as, I do believe, there’s, three years past, recent
footage of the man. And some say they’ve filmed ghosts…

For this
footage to be news, reveals how much cooperative the news are to these
things, when they want to be… and this is very imprtant to understand
the whole story. But I'll get to that later. Not on this post. Later...

for example, didn’t point out whoever sold them the ice-creams, did he?
Whoever she/he was, also never behaved strangely, nor approached or
looked at the children in an ostensible [deliberate/menacing] manner.
Yet, he/she wasn’t mentioned.

And that is all that this TALE
about a beach trip is about: to plant a seed in the police’s mind of
fictitious suspect. Where? On the beach. So, so near
the sea. And he would become so familiar to the beach, right? And, in
case he decided to abduct a child, say Maddie, wouldn't THAT be just the
right place he'd… ups, sorry, forgot he doesn’t exist.

, doesn’t exist, that is. “The Stroller
who also headed, possibly, to the beach, is very, very
real. His other possible destination, the Church.

this statement is given on May 10th, and the Smiths
still hadn’t given any sign of life. One has to find alternative plans.
That’s why Gerry McCann miraculously remembers this exceptional episode
that he so naturally overlooked to have mentioned in his first statement
whilst describing the family’s routines… You can’t say it all the first
time, can you?

And, where else, in PdL, could someone see Maddie
close enough to want her, but the beach?

they would put people on the street (my personal favorite, Pimpleman,
for example), which only months after the people who saw them thought
relevant, but at this time imagination thought that the beach
would be ideally suited and suffice for a "pedo-on-the-prowl"...

the PdL Red Zone was totally out-of-bounds
as we now know why.

So there HAD to be a beach
trip but the route COULDN'T possibly pass nearby the Church,
set deep in the PdL Red Zone.

But as we know,
it simply didn’t pass anywhere. Much less by "the road directly ahead".

abovementioned statement is nothing but an infantile attempt from our
good psychopathic egocentric doctor to convince the entire world that
there was abduction. And the entire world believed him for a while...

was no beach trip

He never saw Bogeyman,
which we all know doesn’t exist, much less in broad daylight.

means that there was no ice-cream for the children.

that is, literally, taking candy from babies.

justagrannynow 1

Posts : 966
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2009-11-26
Location : France

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum