Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'

by crusader 16.08.20 15:27

Again snipped from Verdi's post 12/1/20...

Only of interest in so far as the black and white image of the pyjama photograph accredited to Luis Fora of the Portuguese press agency based in Lisbon, is the only image on that page marked with the PJ stamp. This indicates to me a chain of custody for this particular photograph.

Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job' - Page 18 02volu11

The marina photographs do not. Whether the marina images were taken by Kate McCann or the psychic she was with is unknown. The Leicestershire police officer, DC Markley says in his witness statement that the photographs were handed to him by Kate McCann. The mechanics of that statement I'm at a loss to understand as Kate McCann was not in Leicester and I don't think DC Markley was in Portugal. Unless of course, Kate McCann or a source close thereto, had access to a computer - according to documented information, she didn't.

If you look very carefully, the Marina photos do have facsimile on them.

by Secondthoughts2 16.08.20 15:30

@ Tony Bennett

The Payne/pyjama visit - have now read the info you supplied.

Agree, the two versions, Kate McCanns and David Payne's like their witness statements are never going to be reconciled.

You do say though that the visit by Payne never happened (therefore he could not state whether children dressed in pyjamas whether, white, blue, pink or simply anjelic looking) so Payne would be of no use as to being a witness with regards whether Madeleine was wearing Eyore pyjamas.

I do think though that Payne did make a visit to 5A - not as described in either his or her statements - and I believe he knows exactly how Madeleine was dressed when removed from 5A!

You asked my thoughts on the photos or lack of pictures of Madeleine, after a certain date?

If these children were the offspring of a family other than Kate or Gerry McCann, I might think it a bit odd (I snapped my kids at every opportunity especially at that very young age, didn't want to miss a thing - and no mobile phones back then! Trips to chemist to get developed) but as I know who the parents are, how self obsessed they are, and how little time they spent with the children on this holiday - I don't find it odd at all so few photos. Would they have had camera on mobiles, or just Kate's camera?
Are there photos of the twins beyond the dates you have given- and up until Madeleine vanished?

I don't however hold with the idea that the picture of Gerry, Amelie and Madeleine at the pool was doctored in any way.

You asking about the photos though has reminded me of something I read recently about Kate McCann running up a hill, with a picture of Madeleine in her hand she said. A day when Gerry was not around and neither was the press.
I wonder what picture that was?

It was mentioned that Kate McCann said Madeleine went into the freezing pool the moment the arrived in Portugual. Is there a photo of that? As that would be a photo opportunity that no parent would miss!

I will read more on the photos.

I suspect this last part of my post should not be on this thread, though I am responding to a post on the thread - apologies.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.08.20 15:30

miffy8 wrote:Those pyjamas are significant. Kate washed the top because of a tea stain. Why do we need to know that? As I've said before no busy mum washes a tea stain out of a pyjama top. If it bothered you that much you'd chuck the whole outfit in the wash and get a fresh pair out. Washing the top indicates only one pair of PJ's was brought on holiday for a child or you are attempting to wash away something else? I suggest that those pyjamas might be the last thing she wore. Children's bedtime routine is a very important established time for love, stories, hugs, security and happiness. Sadly the child is missing but the
other symbolic elements of that child parent bond remain or remained. In my view she (Kate) had no intention of parting with any of them until she decided to do so.
A) Cuddle cat = still there B) The pink blanket that was on the bed and evidenced by a photograph=still there after the event and C)The pyjamas = still there.
This is how I see it.

Excellent and perceptive observations

by **Tony Bennett** 16.08.20 15:37

Mainline wrote:In fact the PJ knew the pyjamas' description on May 4th.

From Gerry's statement:

'At the time of her disappearance she was wearing pyjamas, the trousers were white with a floral pattern, and the short-sleeved top was predominantly pink and there was a blue and grey figure of a donkey on the front, with the inscription "Eeyore".'

From Kate's statement:

'At the time of her disappearance, she was wearing pyjamas with white bottoms with a floral pattern. The short-sleeved top, mainly pink with a blue-grey figure of a donkey bearing the inscription, "EEYORE," an inscription which is also on one of the trouser legs. The pyjamas are "Marks and Spencer" brand.'

Thank you.

Maybe one of the few who think the pyjamas with the two wisps of cotton are Amelie's could explain...

Why didn't Kate or Gerry take along Amelie's pyjamas to show the PJ what Madeleine was wearing, instead of just giving a description??????????????

by Guest 16.08.20 15:48

Tony Bennett wrote:Why didn't Kate or Gerry take along Amelie's pyjamas to show the PJ what Madeleine was wearing, instead of just giving a description??????????????

Why does that matter?

The PJ didn't need the pyjamas at the time. They only needed a description of what they looked like prior to the disappearance being reported.

An intensive search for Madeleine was conducted right from the outset. The police though that a description of what Madeleine was wearing could have helped in that search, and who wouldn't think the same back then? Their top priority at the time was to find Madeleine, not determine what had actually happened.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.08.20 19:33

pauloalexandre wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Why didn't Kate or Gerry take along Amelie's pyjamas to show the PJ what Madeleine was wearing, instead of just giving a description??????????????
Why does that matter?

The PJ didn't need the pyjamas at the time. They only needed a description of what they looked like prior to the disappearance being reported.

An intensive search for Madeleine was conducted right from the outset. The police thought that a description of what Madeleine was wearing could have helped in that search, and who wouldn't think the same back then? Their top priority at the time was to find Madeleine, not determine what had actually happened.

Come on!

They had up-to-date photos of Madeleine on Kate's camera, for goodness' sake! They could have given any of those to the PJ. But what did they do? They got Amy Tierney to print out photos of her at about two-and-a-half years old. Don't tell me that was accidental.

This is how the interview with the PJ should have gone:

PJ: Could you please give me a description of the pyjamas she was abducted in?

Gerry/Kate: Of course. Well, they're white, with a floral pattern, an Eeyore figure in the front..wait! - they're EXACTLY the same as the one's Amelie's got! Do you want to take a photo of them?

PJ: Of course! Great. I'll send a photographer round to you straight after our interview...

.

by Guest 16.08.20 20:46

Tony Bennett wrote:Come on!

They had up-to-date photos of Madeleine on Kate's camera, for goodness' sake! They could have given any of those to the PJ. But what did they do? They got Amy Tierney to print out photos of her at about two-and-a-half years old. Don't tell me that was accidental.

We're talking about the pyjamas, not how Madeleine looked like.

The fact of the matter is that the evidence points to the pyjamas photo having been taken by Lusa photographer Luís Forra after the 3rd of May, as demonstrated in the EPA image shown on this thread.

The evidence does not support the claim that Kate took that photo on the morning of the 3rd of May and that the pyjamas featured in the abovementioned photo and the press conferences belonged to Madeleine McCann.

by crusader 16.08.20 21:04

I used to believe Luis Forra took the photo of the PJs until I delved deeper.

I also used to believe that the photo in the files under the heading, Information from the family, had been filed in the wrong place.

But why just this photo filed in the wrong place? Everything else seems to be in the correct place in the files.

Why would the PJ be asking Luis Forra to take photographs for them?

They didn't ring him and ask him to go round to 5a and take photo's in the early morning of 4th May.

by Guest 16.08.20 21:24

crusader wrote:I also used to believe that the photo in the files under the heading, Information from the family, had been filed in the wrong place.

But why just this photo filed in the wrong place? Everything else seems to be in the correct place in the files.

I already presented a likely explanation as to why the photo was attached to those documents.

But even if that explanation is incorrect, what meaning does it have? The photo was very likely public knowledge by the time that statement was made (which was after 8th May). The photo was first presented to the public on 10th May. It does not indicate, in the slightest, that Kate was the author of that photograph.

crusader wrote:Why would the PJ be asking Luis Forra to take photographs for them?

Luís Forra works for the press agency Lusa, not for the PJ.

crusader wrote:They didn't ring him and ask him to go round to 5a and take photo's in the early morning of 4th May.

Who said he took it on the morning of 4th May? The photo was created on the 5th of May.

by crusader 16.08.20 21:48

Sorry @pauloalexandre

I didn't make myself clear, I know Luis Forra doesn't work for the PJ. The pyjama photo has been attributed to Luis Forra and it's widely accepted that it was him who took it on the 5th for the PJ or at least supplied the photo to the PJ.

So, how did the photo get into the hands of the PJ without them asking him to take it?

He wouldn't just turn up at the police station with a photo of a pair of pyjamas and say, this is a photo of Pyjamas that are similar to the ones the missing girl was wearing.

by Verdi 16.08.20 21:48

crusader wrote:
But why just this photo filed in the wrong place? Everything else seems to be in the correct place in the files.

Not so crusader.

I'm at a loss to understand why PJ photographs of apartment 5a were included on Kate McCann's 7th September arguido statement. The particular interview when she declined, on advise by her lawyer, to answer questions posed.

Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job' - Page 18 Scree835

I've no doubt there are other instances if one cares to delve a little further.

I have come across a number of irregularities in the PJ file transcripts/translations. Maybe badly recorded on DVD by the PJ department or maybe a simple error by the good hearted folk who took the time and trouble to document the files on the internet for our benefit.

They are only human but whatever, the PJ files as documented on the internet are not perfect. They are however cross referenced and contain a nauseating amount of repetition - this enables the reader to double check information, or at least recognize apparent errors.

I don't believe for a second the pyjama photograph accredit to Luis Forra was handed over by Kate McCann to UK police along with the psychic's photograph portfolio. Apart from anything else, it doesn't make any sense - as I pointed out in the link provided from the beginning of this year. Before 'the virus' clouded the brain.

by crusader 16.08.20 22:16

The photos of the apartment were included in Kate's arguido statement were there because she was asked questions about them as shown here. 03 --- Shown two photographs of the cupboard of her bedroom, and asked for a description of the contents, she did not respond.

04 --- Asked for what reason the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window, the photograph of which was shown to her, is moved [disordered], she did not respond. She did not respond to the question if someone [anyone] had passed [had gone; had walked] behind that sofa.
[NOTE: ?Passed? here is a physical movement, not metaphysical as in 'died']elow.

by **Mainline** 16.08.20 22:26

Verdi wrote:
crusader wrote:
But why just this photo filed in the wrong place? Everything else seems to be in the correct place in the files.

Not so crusader.

I'm at a loss to understand why PJ photographs of apartment 5a were included on Kate McCann's 7th September arguido statement. The particular interview when she declined, on advise by her lawyer, to answer questions posed.

I've no doubt there are other instances if one cares to delve a little further.

I have come across a number of irregularities in the PJ file transcripts/translations. Maybe badly recorded on DVD by the PJ department or maybe a simple error by the good hearted folk who took the time and trouble to document the files on the internet for our benefit.

They are only human but whatever, the PJ files as documented on the internet are not perfect. They are however cross referenced and contain a nauseating amount of repetition - this enables the reader to double check information, or at least recognize apparent errors.

I don't believe for a second the pyjama photograph accredit to Luis Forra was handed over by Kate McCann to UK police along with the psychic's photograph portfolio. Apart from anything else, it doesn't make any sense - as I pointed out in the link provided from the beginning of this year. Before 'the virus' clouded the brain.

I would imagine that either the PJ showed them in the interview, or the person running the mccannpjfiles site thought them pertinent. I have also found errors in there, in one case the ommission of a registration plate. Always check the actual documents before forming judgment.

by Verdi 17.08.20 1:42

crusader wrote:The photos of the apartment were included in Kate's arguido statement were there because she was asked questions about them as shown here. 03 --- Shown two photographs of the cupboard of her bedroom, and asked for a description of the contents, she did not respond.

04 --- Asked for what reason the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window, the photograph of which was shown to her, is moved [disordered], she did not respond. She did not respond to the question if someone [anyone] had passed [had gone; had walked] behind that sofa.
[NOTE: ?Passed? here is a physical movement, not metaphysical as in 'died']elow.

I take your point crusader but it's only those few images included in mccannpjfiles documentation. from Kate McCann's arguido interview.

I think mainline has hit the nail on the head ^^^.

That aside, as I said I've come across a number of anomalies in the transcript/translation of the PJ files documented on the mccannpjfiles. But as I also said, there is much cross-referencing and repetition so at least there is some refuge.

Going back to the original point, the key to my mind is the mark clearly shown on the pyjama photograph that curiously found it's way into the file documentation relating to the psychics marina vision, allegedly passed to the UK police by Kate McCann - link already provided up-page.

The pyjama photograph shows it was in the PJ chain of custody. It crept into documentation relating to the psychic vision - hence I think it reasonable to conclude it was not given to the UK police by Kate McCann.

I'd go so far as to say the pyjama image was most definitely not passed to the UK police by Kate McCann.

I can't say with certainty who took the pyjama photograph but I can say with certainty, as shown up-thread, the photograph was accredited to Luis Forra of LUSA press agency. I have no reason to doubt Luis Forra's integrity nor the provenance of the photograph.

If anyone can prove me wrong with positive evidence then, and only then, will I reconsider.

howdy

by Secondthoughts2 17.08.20 10:46

@ Peter Mac

Apologies, I didn't spot the graph you posted. I'm unsure how to post and have it attached to what I am responding to, so apologies again.

Exactly!

It is impossible to reconcile their police witness statements which Dr Amaral and his Portuguese team recognised from early. And why he and they had to be silenced.

Their statements clearly are not true (the graph demonstrates the impossibility of their truthfulness, in a simple way) makes it so utterly astounding as to why everyone who has ever been involved in this case, be it police officers of whatever rank, of whatever country/private detectives/the Clarence's of this world, and or others (all those ex coppers who now describe themselves as experts) who have benefited in some way by supporting/not having courage to stand up and be counted in case of the disappearance of this little girl. All those who have chosen to turn a blind eye to the evidence before them - shame on every one.

The enormity of their inaction beyond staggering.

Madeleine not being found - is it simply down to how well her parents, their friends hid the body, or, have all those aforementioned aided?

I know where I stand on that one.

Just a thought -have any of these ex coppers - the self proclaimed experts in child abduction, ever in the press/in TV interview - explained why the statements can't be reconciled? Has anyone ever challenged them in interview in this respect?

by crusader 17.08.20 15:49

Police Inspector Stephen Markley was in Praia da Luz on 5th May 07 according to his witness statement in the PJ files. 25/4/08.

He traveled to Portugal in the roll of Family Communication Officer.

In his fax to the PJ, He said the photographs were handed to him by Kate.

by **Mainline** 17.08.20 16:25

https://twitter.com/McCannCaseTweet/status/1295335392040779781

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rtp.pt%2Fnoticias%2Fpais%2Fpj-diz-nao-existirem-suspeitas-sobre-familiares-de-madeleine_n44287

We are trying to get more info but Luis says he took the photo for the PJ on the 10th, in Portimao Arena. It was then handed out to press at the end of the conference.

May 10th is the day everyone bar Kate gave second interviews (also in Portimao).

ETA - So far nothing to explain why the PJ would ask him to take the picture and not do it themselves.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.08.20 16:35

crusader wrote:Police Inspector Stephen Markley was in Praia da Luz on 5th May 07 according to his witness statement in the PJ files. 25/4/08.

He travelled to Portugal in the role of Family Communication Officer.

In his fax to the PJ, he said the photographs were handed to him by Kate.

Oh!

by Verdi 17.08.20 16:47

05-Cartas Rogatorias Vol V Pages 9 - 10
cr5_9
cr5_10
Statement by: Stephen Markley

Occupation: Police Officer

This statement (composed of 2 pages and signed by me) is true and in accordance with my understanding.

Date: 25th April 2008
Signature____________________

I am police officer Markley of the Leicestershire Police currently working in the criminal unit.

In 2007 and in relation to the Portuguese investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, I was detached to Portugal in the role of family communication officer.

According to the Portuguese PJ Letter of Request, I was asked to respond to the following question:

Was there anything done or said by Kate or Gerry McCann in your presence or during your various meetings that could raise any suspicion that they had any knowledge about what could have happened to Madeleine, beyond the circumstances described to the Portuguese investigators?

My reply to the question was: No.

However, in relation to the above, I would like to add the following: At about 20.00 on Saturday 5th May 2007, I arrived at the apartment where Kate and Gerry were staying, with other officers. During the meeting Gerald and Kate had a number of questions to which they wanted follow up and responses from the PJ.

One of these questions was that they wanted the PJ to be aware of was Madeleine's revelation about Wednesday night, when she said that she was left alone during the night. She told Kate and Gerry that she remembered the twins crying and that she wanted to know why neither her mother nor her father had gone to the room to see what was happening.

They also wanted to know whether the PJ had any evidence that would suggest that the person who took Madeleine had used any substance to facilitate the abduction.

This statement was made by me and is truthful in accordance with my understanding.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN_MARKLEY.htm

by Verdi 17.08.20 16:53

Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job' - Page 18 Scree837

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BOATS_VISION.htm

by Verdi 17.08.20 16:58

by Guest 17.08.20 17:06

Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job' - Page 18 Email10

Translation:

"The photo was taken in a press conference conducted by the Policia Judiciária in Portimão Arena."

by Guest 17.08.20 17:21

PJ says there are no suspicions about Madeleine's family

10th May 2007, 19:56

by Lusa Agency

The Judiciary Police (PJ) assured that "there is no suspicion of family members and friends of the child" Madeleine MacCann - again interviewed by the PJ.
"There is no suspicion about them, having been heard for the purpose of clarifying the investigation," says PJ, in a statement released at the beginning of the press conference held Thursday in Portimão.

Chief inspector Olegário Sousa, spokesman for the Judiciary in this case, revealed that, "to date, there have been no arrests related to the disappearance of Madeleine MacCann at home, or abroad".

The head of the PJ also said that he had been informed by the GNR that "the searches started after the disappearance are being concluded."

GNR, Maritime Police, PSP, District Relief Operations Command (CDOS), Lagos Municipal Civil Protection, Red Cross, Firemen and GNR Forest Surveillance Teams (SEPNA) have participated in the searches, without results.

Olegário Sousa clarified that "images of video surveillance systems from various locations have been exhaustively viewed, in order to detect any possible signs that may have been recorded".

At the press conference held at the Portimão Arena pavilion, the PJ spokesman said that "countless investigative hypotheses, resulting from information that in large numbers continue to reach the PJ, continue to be overlooked."

"So far, more than 200 square kilometers have been searched, and the area has been divided, according to the proximity to the place of disappearance, into three zones: near, intermediate and remote perimeter," he said.

Olegário Sousa assured that all sectors were searched more than once, by kinotechnical teams (dog-man) and search and rescue.

Along with the statement, the PJ attached a photograph of a pajama that the girl wore at the time of the disappearance, with white pants and pink blouse, with the blue donkey "Eyore", from the cartoon Winnie the Pooh (teddy bear " Puff ", in Portuguese), printed.

Asked by journalists about the child's whereabouts, Olegário de Sousa refused any information, saying it would be "speculation".

Madeleine MacCann disappeared last Thursday from a tourist village in Praia da Luz, near Lagos, when her parents had dinner in a restaurant inside the resort and close to the room where the girl slept, along with two twin brothers.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rtp.pt%2Fnoticias%2Fpais%2Fpj-diz-nao-existirem-suspeitas-sobre-familiares-de-madeleine_n44287

by Guest 17.08.20 17:44

Verdi wrote:I'm at a loss to understand why PJ photographs of apartment 5a were included on Kate McCann's 7th September arguido statement. The particular interview when she declined, on advise by her lawyer, to answer questions posed.

The photos were included because they were shown to Kate during the interrogation.

They are relevant to some of the questions that were being asked.