Re: Maddie's Eeyore pyjamas

by **tigger** 03.06.12 6:52

I wouldn't be surprised it those two photos were much earlier - hairstyle is very much a deciding factor in assessing the age of people.
This looks like very long hair, since the crimping would shorten it a lot. Imo it's likely to be hairpieces - it's hard to see how far the hair carries on. On the second one, with the half-smile, she looks very grown up, just by lengthening the nose and chin a little it would have been a much better age progression photo to use.

The pyjamas are imo a prop. She certainly wasn't wearing them when she 'was taken'.
But officially:
the ones she was wearing
the clean ones Kate put on a bed in the new apartment in the presence of a journalist
the dirty ones replete with Maddie's DNA thrown in the boot of the car when they moved to the villa.

So which ones were Maddie's Jammies that Amelie referred to? Amelie was very petite - they should have been far too big. Sean in the red T shirt too. Very strange.

But as for clothes - Kate makes a big deal about buying clothes for the children as if it shows how good a mother she was. In the diary too, buying shoes for the twins is a trial. Most mothers love buying clothes for children that age, the shops are replete with gorgeous stuff for those muppets. I've bought stuff for nieces and nephews lately, it's irresistible. Surely a mother should enjoy doing that? Not adding it to the many sacrifices she has made for the children?

by friedtomatoes 03.06.12 7:20

jd wrote:I just find giving Amelie Maddies PJ's to wear just.... weird. But then the 3 kids all shared the same toothbrush, same hairbrush and even shared the same sandals. All despite being different ages and sizes. These doctors are freaks and know nothing about health and hygiene

The UK press should hang their heads in utter shame with their reporting slandering the Portuguese. No words I can say on a forum describes them. As for "She appears on the verge of collapse"....lets have a look at kates verge of a collapse just a couple of days when this verge of collapse was reported

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

gosh they look so happy its vomit inducing

eta tigger i think the last age progression photo is horrid and absolutely nothing like madeleine at age 9 or any age, you could mistake it for a boy if it werent for the long hair, madeleine was very pretty that wouldnt be lost five years later and she certainly wouldnt have a bald batch in her hair, how gross

by russiandoll 03.06.12 9:45

DP, RI : " you know I can’t remember exactly what, what you know the night attire, what the children were wearing but white was the predominant err colour."

4th May 2007.
I believe the first statements are the important ones. A shame we can't read the police questions. It would seem he was not asked when was the last time he saw Maddie, which I find incredible, he then could have spoken about his visit, nothing to stop him volunteering this regardless, I would have thought.

Can anyone tell me the reason why neither the Paynes nor Kate McCann were required to give second statements along with the other members of the holiday group later on in the week, 10th-11th May?
Will re -read the early interviews yet again..... I would have expected all of them to be asked a fundamental when was the last time you saw Madeleine?

by **PeterMac** 03.06.12 10:02

And let us not forget

"The aspects clearly with the PCC have been helpful in terms of protecting privacy, particularly for our twins of which [sic] was a major concern for us - continued to be photographed and we wanted that stopped...' Gerry McCann speaking before the HoC Culture, Media and Sports Committee - Press Standards, Privacy and Libel."

Not to mention the writ

They claim £215,000 each for emotional distress

They say they suffer 'permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear'.

The writ also says Kate McCann is 'steeped in a deep and serious depression'.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Obvious to all.

by russiandoll 03.06.12 10:05

The notorious book- launch photo in Amsterdam was another goodie.... they decided after the derision it caused that it was not to be published again, didn't they?

by **PeterMac** 03.06.12 10:11

russiandoll wrote: The notorious book- launch photo in Amsterdam was another goodie.... they decided after the derision it caused that it was not to be published again, didn't they?

Indeed.
So here it is again.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by russiandoll 03.06.12 13:41

thanks for posting that, I still have not worked out how to post photos and videos !

what's that saying ? "a picture tells a thousand words." That photograph is an insult to all those who struggle with the blackness of serious depression and as a GP KMcC must have treated a few of those.

all off topic , sorry...but I recall Kate in her book describing her husband as "glowing" at an event they attended...a verb I would have thought more suited to seeing his bride, seeing his newborn babies, seeing the first day at school, any number of occasions when you would radiate joy.
With what they were living through, Gerry managing a wide smile or a laugh would have been an achievement. Glowing?
b : to show exuberance or elation
maybe he was glowing...with pride in what had been achieved.
No further comment.

by **tigger** 03.06.12 16:37

russiandoll wrote: DP, RI : " you know I can’t remember exactly what, what you know the night attire, what the children were wearing but white was the predominant err colour."

4th May 2007.
I believe the first statements are the important ones. A shame we can't read the police questions. It would seem he was not asked when was the last time he saw Maddie, which I find incredible, he then could have spoken about his visit, nothing to stop him volunteering this regardless, I would have thought.

Can anyone tell me the reason why neither the Paynes nor Kate McCann were required to give second statements along with the other members of the holiday group later on in the week, 10th-11th May?
Will re -read the early interviews yet again..... I would have expected all of them to be asked a fundamental when was the last time you saw Madeleine?

I think it wasn't as early as the 4th that Amaral asked for other witness statements than those of the parents to establish if she was alive after 4.30? In any case after she was collected from the creche. Only when he asked for more information did the Payne visit come up.
A total fabrication imo and I'll see if I can find it in Dr. Roberts' articles. Gerry, Payne and Kate all have different times and versions. But basically, the Payne visit was a reaction to a question by Amaral.

by **tigger** 03.06.12 16:54

This is from 'A Payne in the glass' Dr. Roberts 2011.

snipped
.. the responses given by David Payne to a prepared questionnaire, these responses having been read 'very carefully,' by D.C. Marshall. Among them, and singled out for special attention, is the 'declaration' by Payne that he saw Madeleine for the last time at 17.00 (5.00 p.m.) on the 3 May, 2007 in the McCanns' apartment. Also present were Kate and Gerry McCann. The relevant sentence in Portuguese is not complex and, given its point of origin, the original English will have been no more so.

This one sentence, whether read in Portuguese or English is highly significant. It attests to awareness on the part of Leicestershire Police of the issue of 'last sighting', the timing of David Payne's 3 May appearance in 5A and the possibility that both McCanns were present. These data were therefore already a matter of official police record by the time D.C. Mitchell wrote his covering letter. So what action was taken in this regard once David Payne's Rogatory Interviews were concluded in April the following year?

Insofar as David Payne's various accounts of his brief sojourn in 5A not only diverge from Kate McCann's but are discrepant within themselves, it is perfectly clear that David Payne lied to Leicestershire Police. Either he last saw Madeleine at 5.00 p.m. in the company of both parents, or he last saw her in the presence of Kate McCann alone approximately an hour-and-a half later. A last sighting cannot be made twice.

According to Kate McCann, in her statement to police in Portugal (6 September, 2007), the McCanns themselves did not arrive back at their apartment until 5.40 p.m. that evening. (Gerry McCann, in his earlier statement of May 10, 2007 puts the time at 'after 5.30').

Given this three-way discrepancy, only one deposition can be true. (That is not to say that it must be so. They could all be false). That Payne has lied is beyond dispute, but if it should transpire that his 'questionnaire' declaration is the truthful one, then a case of lying, and hence obstructing the police, can legitimately be made against the McCanns also, since a 5.00 p.m. encounter with David Payne in 5A presupposes that the parents had already returned to their apartment by then, not dallied in the 'meal area' with others.
unquote

by jd 03.06.12 18:05

david payne was down at the beach at 5pm then Parasido restaurant. The tapas friends all waved to kate mccann at 5.15pm as she was running past on the beach

by Hummingbird 04.06.12 10:43

jd wrote:david payne was down at the beach at 5pm then Parasido restaurant. The tapas friends all waved to kate mccann at 5.15pm as she was running past on the beach

Here's what I can't get my head around.

Taking Government connections, newspaper connections, pre planning out of the picture why there 'seem' to be so many friends/people involved in this.

I cannot subscribe to this being pre planned and that at least 25 people are aware of what happened to her, no amount of money in the world would keep that many people quiet, someone would eventually crack.
I have to keep working on the accidental death theory (as I can find nothing that makes me believe in the abduction theory).
So lets assume that either KM & /or GM were with Madeleine when she had an accident or found her after it and NO ONE else was there. WHY and for what reason would you involve your friends in it? You decide in your panic to not take your child to a hospital, you maybe think you can treat it, but it proves unsuccessful, why would you involve your friends, you must surely know what you are doing is illegal so the less people who know the better.
If one or more of your friends are involved then they must have been with you at the time of either a. the accident or b. finding Madeleine and then I cannot understand why more than 3 + adults could not see that what they were doing was wrong and talk the others into doing what was right.
The only way in my mind you would involve your friends (maybe only 1) is if you knew they had something to hide too, and would therefore keep quiet, but even so I cannot get my mind round the fact that this many people would keep quiet for this long, the fear they must live with IF they have any idea what did really happen must be enough to make someone tell the truth.

by Ribisl 04.06.12 13:49

Hummingbird wrote:
jd wrote:david payne was down at the beach at 5pm then Parasido restaurant. The tapas friends all waved to kate mccann at 5.15pm as she was running past on the beach

Here's what I can't get my head around.

Taking Government connections, newspaper connections, pre planning out of the picture why there 'seem' to be so many friends/people involved in this.

I cannot subscribe to this being pre planned and that at least 25 people are aware of what happened to her, no amount of money in the world would keep that many people quiet, someone would eventually crack.
I have to keep working on the accidental death theory (as I can find nothing that makes me believe in the abduction theory).
So lets assume that either KM & /or GM were with Madeleine when she had an accident or found her after it and NO ONE else was there. WHY and for what reason would you involve your friends in it? You decide in your panic to not take your child to a hospital, you maybe think you can treat it, but it proves unsuccessful, why would you involve your friends, you must surely know what you are doing is illegal so the less people who know the better.
If one or more of your friends are involved then they must have been with you at the time of either a. the accident or b. finding Madeleine and then I cannot understand why more than 3 + adults could not see that what they were doing was wrong and talk the others into doing what was right.
The only way in my mind you would involve your friends (maybe only 1) is if you knew they had something to hide too, and would therefore keep quiet, but even so I cannot get my mind round the fact that this many people would keep quiet for this long, the fear they must live with IF they have any idea what did really happen must be enough to make someone tell the truth.

I have always believed that T7 represent the weakest link in the McCanns' chain of defence. Hence their collective refusal to enact a reconstruction. Someone will crack soon or later, I am quietly confident of it.

by **tigger** 04.06.12 15:38

Hummingbird wrote:

If one or more of your friends are involved then they must have been with you at the time of either a. the accident or b. finding Madeleine and then I cannot understand why more than 3 + adults could not see that what they were doing was wrong and talk the others into doing what was right.
The only way in my mind you would involve your friends (maybe only 1) is if you knew they had something to hide too, and would therefore keep quiet, but even so I cannot get my mind round the fact that this many people would keep quiet for this long, the fear they must live with IF they have any idea what did really happen must be enough to make someone tell the truth.
unquote
I can think of several scenarios where your friends are totally oblivious of what's happened to Maddie, except they know it's 'something'.
You start off with a sick child that's not getting better for some medical reason. You may have given the child Calpol - which is illegal in Portugal and possibly some other drugs. So you say that a PM is out of the question, you will lose your job, etc. Not only that, your friends will be tainted as well. E.g. why were they so 'into each other?' All that's required is a bit of back-up.
There is the interesting 'dynamic of small groups'. A lot has been written about this.
IMO all that was needed to set the whole circus in motion were two people and a number of people around them prepared for the 'worst'. Not an abduction or murder, but death by some form of culpability of the parents.
DP didn't seem at all keen to risk his neck by witnessing the three children on the 3rd. All of their testimony is wildly out of sync. I think they didn't think it mattered, what with being superior to the Portuguese by being doctors and British. xenophobia worked really well here.
It's a very complicated case, but the match that lit the bonfire was handled only by two people imo.

by **tigger** 08.05.14 11:42

Just bumping this up as the pyjamas came up in another topic and this is one which has stayed on topic for more than 3 pages! Mrs

So information on the jimjams is easier to find.

However, I am 100% sure that I saw a discussion somewhere, complete with photographs and Amelie'measured in, on the press conference where the pyjamas were shown, it's on McCannfiles as well if you type in pyjamas and press in the search box.
However, the issue of the many sets of nightwear one child might take on holiday doesn't make sense. Amelie has allegedly said that she was wearing Maddie 's pyjamas. Allegedly the same ones she was wearing on 3/5.
How can that be?
The trousers of the pyjamas displayed at the press conference would imo not reach much below M's knees (certainly not if one considers her size in the tennis photo) whereas they'd be full length on Amelie.
Just a thought.

by ultimaThule 08.05.14 12:28

The following height chart is from this site [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

VII. Normal Height for Girls (range: 3% to 97%)

Birth: 18.5 -21.1 inches, mean: 50 cm (20 in)
Age 1 years: 27-31 inches, mean: 73 cm (29 in)
Age 2 years: 32-37 inches, mean: 85 cm (34 in)
Age 3 years: 35-40 inches, mean: 95 cm (38 in)
Age 4 years: 38-44 inches, mean: 103 cm (41 in)

At the time she disappeared Madeleine's height, as recorded by the PJ, was 90cm which is worryingly small and, if true, at a week off her 4th birthday she was only 5cm taller than the average height of a 2 year old girl.

Furthermore, there are photos of Amelie, taken within a month or so of 3 May 2007, in which she appears to be wearing the shorts worn by Madeleine in the tennis photo and, notwithstanding the fact that she was in nappies, they don't look to be too big for her.

Rightly or wrongly, I've formed the impression that Madeleine had very few items of clothing which were uniquely her own and it seems that all of her clothes and shoes were immediately made available for Amelie's use.

Log in for more topics