Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'

by worriedmum 01.08.18 22:12

Phoebe wrote:@ Tony Bennett. Hi Tony, I do agree with what you say above but was being cautious since there is no hard proof that A) Amelie really did make that comment or B) that Madeline did not have a second pair of pyjamas to which Amelie was referring.
However, if Amelie did indeed comment on the Eeyore pyjamas as being Madeleine's then I do not believe she possessed an identical pair herself at all. I find it hard to believe that a child aged 26 months would note the difference between her own Eeyore pair and an identical pair! If John McCann's story is true ( and referred to the Eeyore pyjamas) then I believe there was only ever one pair of these - Madeleine's. John's comment refers to Kate dressing Amelie in a pair of pyjamas which belonged to her older sister. Logically then, if they were not the Eeyore pair then Madeleine had at least another set of pyjamas on that holiday. If Kate brought more than one pair for her toilet-trained almost 4 year old then surely she would have done the same for her other daughter who was still in nappies and much more likely to have needed a second pair. If Amelie did, herself, have more than one pair of pyjamas why was there a need to resort to using her older sister's!
In any case, I can't find the idea of Kate buying the exact same pair of pyjamas for both daughters and intending to put one pair away for 12- 18 months until the child had grown enough to consider trying to wear them, credible in the least.

Phoebe, I think you have hit the nail on the head.

If a two year old had a certain pair of pyjamas and she saw an identical pair being held up, I believe her reaction would be to say 'MY jammies'.
I can't think of a plausible reason as to why she would assume they were her sister's, toddlers are still very egocentric. John McCann appears to confirm this by adding that Amelie then said, 'Where is Maddie?'

My opinion is that they are Madeleine's. Where they made available to Eddie and Keela?

by **Tony Bennett** 01.08.18 22:38

worriedmum wrote:
Phoebe wrote:@ Tony Bennett. Hi Tony, I do agree with what you say above but was being cautious since there is no hard proof that A) Amelie really did make that comment or B) that Madeline did not have a second pair of pyjamas to which Amelie was referring.
However, if Amelie did indeed comment on the Eeyore pyjamas as being Madeleine's then I do not believe she possessed an identical pair herself at all. I find it hard to believe that a child aged 26 months would note the difference between her own Eeyore pair and an identical pair! If John McCann's story is true ( and referred to the Eeyore pyjamas) then I believe there was only ever one pair of these - Madeleine's. John's comment refers to Kate dressing Amelie in a pair of pyjamas which belonged to her older sister. Logically then, if they were not the Eeyore pair then Madeleine had at least another set of pyjamas on that holiday. If Kate brought more than one pair for her toilet-trained almost 4 year old then surely she would have done the same for her other daughter who was still in nappies and much more likely to have needed a second pair. If Amelie did, herself, have more than one pair of pyjamas why was there a need to resort to using her older sister's!
In any case, I can't find the idea of Kate buying the exact same pair of pyjamas for both daughters and intending to put one pair away for 12- 18 months until the child had grown enough to consider trying to wear them, credible in the least.

Phoebe, I think you have hit the nail on the head.

If a two year old had a certain pair of pyjamas and she saw an identical pair being held up, I believe her reaction would be to say 'MY jammies'.
I can't think of a plausible reason as to why she would assume they were her sister's, toddlers are still very egocentric. John McCann appears to confirm this by adding that Amelie then said, 'Where is Maddie?'

My opinion is that they are Madeleine's. Where they made available to Eddie and Keela?

Thank you very much @ Phoebe and @ worriedmum for your clear and common sense thinking on this issue.

Children at 2 know every well whose pyjamas, jumpers, trousers, shoes and even socks and pants belong to.

If only a few more people could see this obvious truth

by Guest 02.08.18 0:42

Size is relative - in short, if the cap fits wear it! Too much wishing based on fabricated information. such a familiar pattern seen over the past 11 + years.

To put it simply, why would the McCanns promote the nightwear Madeleine was wearing when she was abducted - it doesn't make any sense. If Madeleine was abducted then her nightwear was abducted with her, would the McCanns be so crass as to draw attention to the pyjamas as those she was wearing when abducted?

As much as I respect the diligence of Dr Martin Roberts over the years, I think this particular issue is more wishful thinking, or exaggerated hype than factual information. It's a theory based on a personal perception but appears to have been taken as gospel by the hungry onlooker, just how many similar situations have been witnessed over the past years? If the content suits your own particular mindset then it's gospel, if it doesn't then it's open to discussion and/or criticism, or even total dismissal - the latter being my position.

Back to basics - the original image of the pair of pyjamas under such close scrutiny, according to the European Press Agency, clearly shows a background of dark grey textured cloth, NOT blue which so much of this conspiracy has been built on, leading to the belief that the photograph was taken in Ocean Club apartment 5a. It would appear someone was making mischief when the image morphed from a grey to blue backcloth.

Maddie's jammies? Hogwash, there is no proof this was ever said - just more media hype emanating from team McCann.

The McCanns European/North African tour, seemingly organised by Clarence Mitchell and associates, was just a show. It had no substance or purpose, a publicity exercise pure and simple. The publicised pyjamas represented abduction - problem being Madeleine was most definitely not abducted, a show to fool the masses and it worked with great eclat. Kate McCann's bewk followed the same pattern as regards media hype.

by Crackfox 02.08.18 12:44

I disagree Verdi - the dark grey/ blue backgrounds are the same photo IMO because the loose threads are in exactly the same position and so are the pyjamas. If these are two separate photos then the composition is identical and I can't see how that would happen and I can't see any reason why anyone would want to deliberately mislead by changing the background colour. IMO the McCanns never envisaged the level of scrutiny they would receive and I think they did over play their hand on numerous occasions - you yourself have said you think the so called last photo was not taken when they claim it was and I think you believe, like I do, that the tennis photo is a fake. Perhaps you see this as a step too far but I just see it as par for the course and the sort of thing people who think they are smarter than everyone else might do.

A really interesting topic and it's great to hear all the different opinions. I thought skyrocket's observation about the length of the pyjama bottoms was very important and a smoking gun IMO.

by Guest 02.08.18 12:57

Crackfox wrote:I disagree Verdi - the dark grey/ blue backgrounds are the same photo IMO because the loose threads are in exactly the same position and so are the pyjamas. If these are two separate photos then the composition is identical and I can't see how that would happen and I can't see any reason why anyone would want to deliberately mislead by changing the background colour.

Whoa there! I didn't say or even suggest that there are two different photographs of the same content. I only say the image has morphed from a dark grey background with wishywashy pyjamas (excuse the pun) to a blue background. Could have been deliberate or could be the process of reproduction by passing through so many hands - whatever, the image with the blue background runs counter to the image I previously posted, owned by the European Press Agency and almost certainly the original photograph accredited to the photographic journalist.

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

by **Jill Havern** 02.08.18 12:59

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

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

by Crackfox 02.08.18 14:11

Thanks for clearing that up Verdi. Surely, even if we take the blue background out of the equation, there are still some very serious misnomers and questions to ask? Why would there be a photograph released to the press and isn't it coincidental that the date the EPA received it corresponds with the date we know at least one other photograph of dubious provenance was also released? Why would the family prioritise releasing an image of pyjamas over the release of 'the last photo' which would surely have been a lot more helpful in the search for their daughter than an image of pyjamas that no one is going to remember accurately - not even JT who allegedly saw them on the night. More shenanigans IMO. I'm sure this will rumble on...

by Guest 02.08.18 15:22

Crackfox wrote:Thanks for clearing that up Verdi. Surely, even if we take the blue background out of the equation, there are still some very serious misnomers and questions to ask? Why would there be a photograph released to the press and isn't it coincidental that the date the EPA received it corresponds with the date we know at least one other photograph of dubious provenance was also released? Why would the family prioritise releasing an image of pyjamas over the release of 'the last photo' which would surely have been a lot more helpful in the search for their daughter than an image of pyjamas that no one is going to remember accurately - not even JT who allegedly saw them on the night. More shenanigans IMO. I'm sure this will rumble on...

Sorry you've lost me. This is the information about the pyjama photograph direct from the EPA, the photograph was taken (created) on 5th May 2007 ..

British missing girl photo information

Photographer
LUIS FORRA
Medianumber
01005211
Date Created
05.05.2007
Region
West Europe > Portugal > PORTIMAO
Category
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Title
PORTUGAL BRITISH MISSING GIRL
Headline
British missing girl

Description
epa01005211 Pyjama equal to the one Madeleine McCann, the three year old British child, who went missing last week in the Ocean Club village of Praia da Luz, is displayed by the police, Portimao, Portugal, 10 May 2007. EPA/LUIS FORRA

Credit

EPA
Source
LUSA
Caption Writer
JR/PC/MA PT/JS/TP/AR
Image Size
1440px x 2048px
12,2cm x 17,3cm (300dpi)

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

by Guest 02.08.18 15:36

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

by **Tony Bennett** 02.08.18 15:38

Verdi wrote:Size is relative - in short, if the cap fits wear it! Too much wishing based on fabricated information. such a familiar pattern seen over the past 11 + years.

To put it simply, why would the McCanns promote the nightwear Madeleine was wearing when she was abducted - it doesn't make any sense. If Madeleine was abducted then her nightwear was abducted with her, would the McCanns be so crass as to draw attention to the pyjamas as those she was wearing when abducted?

As much as I respect the diligence of Dr Martin Roberts over the years, I think this particular issue is more wishful thinking, or exaggerated hype than factual information. It's a theory based on a personal perception but appears to have been taken as gospel by the hungry onlooker, just how many similar situations have been witnessed over the past years? If the content suits your own particular mindset then it's gospel, if it doesn't then it's open to discussion and/or criticism, or even total dismissal - the latter being my position.

Back to basics - the original image of the pair of pyjamas under such close scrutiny, according to the European Press Agency, clearly shows a background of dark grey textured cloth, NOT blue which so much of this conspiracy has been built on, leading to the belief that the photograph was taken in Ocean Club apartment 5a. It would appear someone was making mischief when the image morphed from a grey to blue backcloth.

Maddie's jammies? Hogwash, there is no proof this was ever said - just more media hype emanating from Team McCann.

The McCanns European/North African tour, seemingly organised by Clarence Mitchell and associates, was just a show. It had no substance or purpose, a publicity exercise pure and simple. The publicised pyjamas represented abduction - problem being Madeleine was most definitely not abducted, a show to fool the masses and it worked with great eclat. Kate McCann's bewk followed the same pattern as regards media hype.

@ Verdi    We both agree that disagreement is fine on this forum where people have a reasonable basis for advancing their views and opinions.

However, your post appears to accuse Nigel Moore and Dr Martin Roberts of skullduggery.

You allege that:

1 "It is based on fabricated information"

2 "It is based on wishful thinking"

3  "It is exaggerated hype"

4 "Someone [meaning Dr Martin Roberts, or someone else whom you have not identified] was [deliberately] making mischief"

5 "He is guilty of a 'conspiracy'."

These are serious accusations against a generally highly esteemed fellow researcher.

=====

I wonder if you have had time to consider the Press Association photo that Jill posted (clearly showing 'PA' in the bottom right corner).

You would have to consider precisely how, when and why the EPA photo appears to show a blue-grey/grey background while the PA photo shows a background that is quite a bright blue.

I am not sure that we will ever be able to answer that, but have you considered (a) that the EPA version of this photograph may be far the more accurate of the two or (b) that BOTH the EPA and PA versions may have been taken from an original photograph taken either by the McCanns or someone else?

After all ,we know from the Tennis Balls Photo, which says it was 'Created' on Saturday 5 May, that that date was NOT the date the original photograph was actually taken (IF, of course, the McCanns are correct in saying that Madeleine was alive on either Monday, Tuesday or Thursday - the three various dates they and their friends say it was taken).

=====

I turn now to this comment of yours:

QUOTE:  "Maddie's jammies? Hogwash, there is no proof this was ever said - just more media hype emanating from Team McCann".

First off, why on earth do you suggest that this comment is 'more media hype emanating from Team McCann'? - when, in fact, the reported comment ['Maddie's jammies. Where is Maddie?'] actually seriously DAMAGES the McCanns' claims about the pyjamas. Because, of course, Amelia is basically saying: "Hey. Those are Maddie's pyjamas, not mine".

I accept we do not have definitive 'proof' that Amelie said those words, but it IS undoubtedly EVIDENCE. To me, and others on the forum, it seems the most natural comment for a 2-year-old to say when she sees her elder sister's pyjamas. To my mind therefore it appears to have the 'ring of truth about it, and it is evidence we can certainly take into account, even if we may attach relatively little weight to it.

=====

I am not accusing you of bad faith here, I am just asking you to reconsider some of the things you have stated in your post

=====

by Guest 02.08.18 15:38

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

by **Tony Bennett** 02.08.18 15:54

We also have to consider whether Martin Brunt made a slip-up here, when he said this:

Martin Brunt

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

"The Portuguese police are another lot who don't want to tell anyone what they are up to. Okay, they have a judicial secrecy law, but should that have stopped them making public appeals for help in tracing a missing three-year-old? A news conference was an alien concept to the beleaguered detectives searching for Madeleine McCann, but they were eventually badgered into one. It ended in chaos, live of course, and we learned very little from it.

The McCann family themselves had to issue pictures of their daughter and the pyjamas she was wearing on the night she disappeared.

I have as many police contacts in Portugal as I have on Jupiter, so this was always going to be a tricky one, but you would expect to make some progress with the local cops over a glass of Mateus Rose. Yet all attempts were met with a rebuff, usually accompanied by the chewing of a moustache, the shaking of a head and the wagging of a finger (try doing all that at once). I got the message."

====

How can we explain this? Where did the McCanns get that photograph from? Notice that Martin Brunt most certainly does NOT say: "The McCanns themselves had to use a photo they took after Thursday 3rd May of Amelie's pyjamas - which by a remarkable coincidence were exactly the same type and of similar size to the ones Madeleine was wearing when she was abducted".

=====

I also think it is useful to add these previous comments of Dr Martin Roberts:

March 25, 2012
ANOTHER STORY
By Dr Martin Roberts

But whoever it was that members of the Smith family actually saw being carried, it could not have been Madeleine McCann in her Eeyore pyjamas. The child seen by Aoife Smith was said to have been wearing a long-sleeved top. If one is prepared to accept that Jane Tanner can discern the colour of a garment from some distance away, in the dark, when she cannot even see the item in question, then it is even more reasonable to accept the accuracy of Aoife Smith's close-up description.

August 23, 2012
'OUT, DAMN'D SPOT'
By Dr Martin Roberts

Kate's transient preoccupation with those Eeyore pyjamas may have been indicative of nothing more than a concern for 'keeping up appearances'.

And then, irony of ironies, with Kate having made a special point of washing out a seemingly innocuous stain, the pyjamas are abducted, never to be seen again.

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

by Guest 02.08.18 15:56

Tony Bennett wrote:@ Verdi We both agree that disagreement is fine on this forum where people have a reasonable basis for advancing their views and opinions.

However, your post appears to accuse Nigel Moore and Dr Martin Roberts of skullduggery.

You allege that:

1 "It is based on fabricated information"

2 "It is based on wishful thinking"

3 "It is exaggerated hype"

4 "Someone [meaning Dr Martin Roberts, or someone else whom you have not identified] was [deliberately] making mischief"

5 "He is guilty of a 'conspiracy'."

These are serious accusations against a generally highly esteemed fellow researcher.

Goodness me, I make no such accusations - I'm astonished you could even think so let alone express your thoughts.

My sincere apologies if that's how my comments came across.

by Guest 02.08.18 16:11

01 Processos Vol I Page 31 to 33a

01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_31

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

01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_32

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

01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_33A

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

From the PJ

To: The Assistant Prosecutor
Public Ministry

Date: 04-05-2007

Subject: Request for Divulgation by means of the Press

As it is of clear interest to the investigation of the case in reference, I have the honour to ask you to authorise the divulgation of the disappearance of the young girl Madeleine McCann by means of the organs of the press, with the aim of obtaining information leading to her whereabouts.

I enclose a model for divulgation.

With best compliments

The Coordinator of the Investigation.

G. Amaral

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

by **Tony Bennett** 02.08.18 16:51

Verdi wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:@ Verdi    We both agree that disagreement is fine on this forum where people have a reasonable basis for advancing their views and opinions.

However, your post appears to accuse Nigel Moore and Dr Martin Roberts of skullduggery.

You allege that:

1 "It is based on fabricated information"

2 "It is based on wishful thinking"

3  "It is exaggerated hype"

4 "Someone [meaning Dr Martin Roberts, or someone else whom you have not identified] was [deliberately] making mischief"

5 "He is guilty of a 'conspiracy'."

These are serious accusations against a generally highly esteemed fellow researcher.
Goodness me, I make no such accusations - I'm astonished you could even think so let alone express your thoughts.

My sincere apologies if that's how my comments came across.

REPLY BY TONY BENNETT

But, @ Verdi, the words I used above to list your criticisms of Dr Martin Roberts were all taken verbatim from your very own earlier post about his research!

by Joseetje 05.08.18 18:06

It seems to me, it doesn´t really matter whose pj´s they are, fact is that the mc Canns were relocated that night, if they took the picture, it must have been right after Madeleine supposedly disappeared. While they were frantic, non functioning, searching, running around and checking on the twins to see if they were breathing without calling the hospital. Yeah, right..... What does Amaral say about the picture and where it came from?

by Guest 05.08.18 23:56

I'm inclined to agree - what does it matter whose pyjamas were being bandied about during the European tour? One thing is for certain, no matter how one cares to interpret this apparent PR exercise, the McCanns would not publicize or promote the pair of pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was allegedly abducted.

The prevalent theory is built on media reports and interviews, any one with an ounce of savvy knows that the UK media are less than reliable as regards truth. They sensationalize to sell copy - it really is a simple as that.

A notion that the McCanns took the photograph of the pyjamas featured in the PJ files and sourced to the EPA (European Press Agency), is likewise built on the colour of the background, eagerly linked to the upholstery of the sofa photographed in apartment 5a - because of the colour blue!

The flaw with this theory is the very fact that the original photograph as photographed by it's custodian, the EPA, clearly shows the backcloth to be dark grey.

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

Admittedly the backcloth appear to be blue in the PJ's press release but that's really beside the point, there could be any number of explanations for this.

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

In short, there is nothing concrete or even vaguely consistant to suggest the McCanns took the photograph of the pyjamas.

What did Gonçalo Amaral have to say on the subject? Why would he say anything? As previously stated, the photograph is included in the PJ files and accredited to a specific photographer by the EPA, what is to say?

It's routine policing.

by joyce1938 06.08.18 0:09

Yes I believe it was said that some apartments had blue furniture but not 5A. so as you say it wasn't taken where some think ,it was. joyce1938

by Phoebe 06.08.18 17:12

As I understand it, Dr. Roberts was questioning why the P.J. would have bothered to photograph a pair of pyjamas which were incorrect in style (featuring a button-tie at the back, and which were smaller than the "real" pair) then later, go to the bother of repeating this by photographing an exact match (acquired from M&S) which showed a scale comparison and a much clearer image of both front AND back views. The photograph of "Amelie's" is a very amateur effort, being too distant from the item and taken in poor lighting. On the other hand, the police photo included in the forensic report is a much more professional job. This, together with the fact that the McCanns published this second-rate photo days before the P.J. released it, seems to suggest that it was passed onto the P.J. rather than taken officially by them.

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

by Guest 07.08.18 0:00

Disregarding anything published by the media or traipsed around Europe during the McCanns campaign tour, there are two entriely seperate issues at play here.

The photograph of the pair of pyjamas taken by a photographer for the EPA (European Press Agency), were used by the PJ for their official 'missing person' notice released into the public domain.

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

The photograph of the pyjamas provided by M&S, as also included in the PJ files, were used by the forensic laboratory to compare the fabric with fibres harvested during the forensic examination of apartment 5a and elsewhere. Hence inclusion in the investigation documentation - the PJ files.

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

The rest is just window dressing.

by Guest 07.08.18 0:06

07 Processos Vol VII Page 1713
07_VOLUME_VI1a_Page_1713

To: Police Scientific Laboratory
Lisbon

5th June 2007

Subject: Sending of Pyjamas

The present inquiry investigates the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007. I am herewith delivering to the Police Scientific Laboratory a pair of girl's pyjamas.

The Pyjamas are from Marks and Spencers, size 2 to 3 years -97 cm.

The pyjamas are composed of two pieces: camisole type without buttons and half sleeves, pink with designs, letters and tracing in white with (small) floral patterns, the right pyjama bottom leg has a design (smaller size) which is identical to that of the camisole.

The pyjamas being sent are 'equal' in make, model, size, colours and designs as well as presumably the texture, to those the little girl was wearing at the time of her disappearance. The article sent serves for eventual comparisons with fibres collected by the competent officers of the Police Scientific Lab, within the scope of the current investigation.

With compliments

Signed

The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation

Goncalo Amaral

by Phoebe 07.08.18 1:08

Verdi wrote:07 Processos Vol VII Page 1713
07_VOLUME_VI1a_Page_1713

To: Police Scientific Laboratory
Lisbon

5th June 2007

Subject: Sending of Pyjamas

The present inquiry investigates the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007. I am herewith delivering to the Police Scientific Laboratory a pair of girl's pyjamas.

The Pyjamas are from Marks and Spencers, size 2 to 3 years -97 cm.

The pyjamas are composed of two pieces: camisole type without buttons and half sleeves, pink with designs, letters and tracing in white with (small) floral patterns, the right pyjama bottom leg has a design (smaller size) which is identical to that of the camisole.

The pyjamas being sent are 'equal' in make, model, size, colours and designs as well as presumably the texture, to those the little girl was wearing at the time of her disappearance. The article sent serves for eventual comparisons with fibres collected by the competent officers of the Police Scientific Lab, within the scope of the current investigation.

With compliments

Signed

The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation

Goncalo Amaral

Acccording to the letter above, by May 5th the P.J. had access to pyjamas which were identical to those allegedly worn by Madeleine, ie. the camisol is WITHOUT a button-neck fastening. If this is the case one has to wonder why the police would bother taking a photo of pyjamas which are different in that they clearly feature a button fastening. I think this is Dr. Robert's point.

by Guest 07.08.18 1:36

The communication between the Portuguese Police Scientific Laboratory and the case coordinator Goncalo Amaral, is dated 5th June 2007, not 5th May.

Button fastening or no button fastening is immaterial. I thought I'd explained without reason to doubt. The pyjamas provided by Marks and Spencers were used to compare fibres with those harvested at the crime scene, that is why they appear in the PJ files in their own right.

The reasoning is perfectly clear - I can't see where the confusion lies.

by Guest 17.02.19 13:06

Must be missing something... !! If they wanted to keep the abduction story going why produce Madelines actual pjs ? If Madeline was supposedly abducted in those pjs, passing them off as belonging to Amelies' was risky wasnt it. Must read the report again .

by **Tony Bennett** 17.02.19 19:38

Ellen52 wrote:Must be missing something... !! If they wanted to keep the abduction story going why produce Madeleine's [sp] actual pjs ? If Madeleine [sp] was supposedly abducted in those pjs, passing them off as belonging to Amelie's was risky, wasn't it. Must read the report again .

Yes, you are missing something.

In fact you are missing rather a lot.

Most of the report in fact.

You definitely need to re-read it.

The allegation is that the McCanns took a picture of Madeleine's pyjamas on the sofa in their apartment in Praia da Luz, or maybe in another friend's apartment. Probably during Thursday 3 May as Kate McCann actually admitted washing her pyjamas that day.

They successfully passed this off as a 'stock' photo of what Madeleine's pyjamas looked like when she was abducted.

On 5 & 7 June, on two separate occasions, the McCanns and their highly-paid professional advisers suggested that they hold up, at two separate press conferences, a pair of pyjamas said to be Amelie's.

Which would mean that Madeleine and Amelie both had Eeyore pyjamas on the holiday.

However, as Dr Roberts' article demonstrates, the photo of the pyjamas on the photo matches EXACTLY the ones held up at the press conferences.

I think the way Dr Roberts might put it is this: "They hoped that they could get away with this".

P,S. Have corrected your spelling of MADELEINE

by willowthewisp 17.02.19 20:04

Tony Bennett wrote:
Ellen52 wrote:Must be missing something... !! If they wanted to keep the abduction story going why produce Madeleine's [sp] actual pjs ? If Madeleine [sp] was supposedly abducted in those pjs, passing them off as belonging to Amelie's was risky, wasn't it. Must read the report again .
Yes, you are missing something.

In fact you are missing rather a lot.

Most of the report in fact.

You definitely need to re-read it.

The allegation is that the McCanns took a picture of Madeleine's pyjamas on the sofa in their apartment in Praia da Luz, or maybe in another friend's apartment. Probably during Thursday 3 May as Kate McCann actually admitted washing her pyjamas that day.

They successfully passed this off as a 'stock' photo of what Madeleine's pyjamas looked like when she was abducted.

On 5 & 7 June, on two separate occasions, the McCanns and their highly-paid professional advisers suggested that they hold up, at two separate press conferences, a pair of pyjamas said to be Amelie's.

Which would mean that Madeleine and Amelie both had Eeyore pyjamas on the holiday.

However, as Dr Roberts' article demonstrates, the photo of the pyjamas on the photo matches EXACTLY the ones held up at the press conferences.

I think the way Dr Roberts might put it is this: "They hoped that they could get away with this".

P,S. Have corrected your spelling of MADELEINE

Sorry if it sounds flippant?

Amellie is supposed to have responded to an adult, that when the Pyjama's were shown,"Maddies Jammies,Where's Madeleine"?
So a Two year old child has recognised her sisters Pyjamas,the parents were stating were Amellies!

Is that "Proof"?

Above all it requires a suitable answer!

by **Jill Havern** 19.12.19 16:31

An update on The Nightwear Job by Dr Martin Roberts:
A Nightwear Job: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Wednesday, 20 November 2019

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

More questions concerning Madeleine McCann's pyjamas by Dr. Roberts
A feast of reasoned arguments:

It is fully three years since readers’ attention was brought to the possibility of the McCanns’ having prepared for the disappearance of their daughter in advance of the putative event. The article in question (A Nightwear Job) provoked outright hostility on the part of some, and continues to do so. It centres on two photographs of exactly the same subject taken or reproduced with different lighting conditions, the more contrastive of which affords a clue to the blue background against which the subject (a pair of pyjamas) was in fact pictured. Bearing in mind that the upper garment was pink, and appears so in both images, you may find it hard to believe, as I do, that there exists, even today, more than one individual prepared to suggest the background colour is anything but blue in each of them.

Another, altogether spiteful lady (?) has previously, and vociferously, attempted to convince people that the police in Portugal would routinely invite members of the Paparazzi to record evidence for them, submitting out-of-focus, false-perspective prints in the process. A close ally of hers has persisted in reminding his readers that one Luis Forra is credited by his agency (EPA) with the pictures under discussion. Tellingly, Forra is also credited with other daylight photographs (supposedly taken at 11:00 p.m.), one of Madeleine McCann (at age 2), and images from an event that did not take place until several days after his pictures were submitted. Clever man.

“Then prove he didn’t take them!” They chorus. Well, except to the unremittingly dense, the photographs speak for themselves. Had any professional photographer laid claim to them first hand their agency work would have dried up overnight. To quote one of my detractors: “They are simply not terribly good photos.” Needless to say Luis Forra has failed to reply to asinine e-mail entreaties from this deluded duo.

A third man (not Harry Lime) has asked for ‘evidence’ that the Police did not take the photographs in question, despite its having been clearly pointed out that they were devoid of ‘flat lighting’, a neutral background and, most significantly, a scaling reference – a protocol to which police forensic photographers are obliged to adhere. Furthermore, a copy of the image was specifically filed by police as ‘information from the family’, not as a ‘diligence’ of their own. (It is elsewhere claimed by one of the Luis Forra advocates that this is the only image, so archived, to bear the Portuguese ministry’s copyright mark. That claim is demonstrably false. At least three of the marina photographs carry the same mark, partly visible between the areas of dense black).

Intellectual rigor is seemingly lacking among these Wizards of Oz.

This follow-up piece though is about more than the questionable motives of others. To come straight to the point, should the pyjamas in those photographs have belonged to Madeleine McCann, then the story of her abduction can have no foundation whatsoever, since she is supposed to have been wearing them at the time, and stolen clothes do not mysteriously reappear for photo-shoots.
In support of the conjecture that they were indeed Madeleine’s pyjamas, we have visible evidence of their size, of their having been washed (and therefore previously soiled - which chimes with Kate McCann’s tale of tea drinking) and Kate McCann publicly saying so herself (“So these are actually, apart from the size and the button on the back which Madeleine’s doesn’t have, these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken”).
O.K., so Kate endeavoured to distinguish between the pyjamas she and husband Gerry were holding up for the cameras and those actually worn by Madeleine. But the distinction is more apparent than real. What do we genuinely know of the size (they seem plenty big enough to me)? Nothing, other than what Kate chose to mention, which was… nothing of substance. The same goes for the button aspect, which came to light once the PJ had requested a contemporary pair from M&S in the UK and received trousers accompanied by a simple T-shirt in response. Otherwise, instead of a pair of pyjamas ‘very much like’ those worn by Madeleine, we have her mother re-iterating that they were actually hers.

During other appearances before the European media, Kate reinforced the dissociation between Madeleine’s pyjamas and the touring pair, claiming the latter were in fact Amelie’s and ‘a little bit smaller’. That of course makes the ‘not Madeleine’s’ stance noticeably firmer. Nonetheless, the principal question posed at the very beginning of my previous article on the subject was not that of whose pyjamas featured in the photographs, but who took them (the photographs, not the pyjamas) and, no less significantly, when?
Needless to say, the loud-mouthed and foul-mouthed alike volubly contradicted my point of view. ‘They could have been taken by anyone, anywhere’ is about as solid an argument as the denial that Madeleine could ever have lain dead inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club when viable candidates for the role of corpse number precisely one. The impetus to demand ‘proof ‘of a negative statement (i.e., that the photos in this instance were not taken by a third-party) is clearly irresistible to those for whom circumstantial evidence implicating the McCanns in their own daughter’s disappearance is anathema for whatever reason.

Ever since Gerry McCann’s “She’s out there until proven otherwise” invitation to prove Madeleine was not abducted, there has been no shortage of cocksure commentators adopting the same strategy. It is not quite as fail-safe as they may imagine however. As touched upon earlier, should it be accepted that Madeleine’s pyjamas toured Europe after her reported abduction, then the idea that she and her clothing were stolen together would clearly be untenable. But even if those pyjamas were really Amelie’s from the outset, and not merely foisted upon the infant simply in order to bolster that claim, questions pertaining to the photographer’s identity and chronology remain.

So what if those Eeyore pyjamas were genuinely purchased for the younger girl?

Overlooking the purchaser’s lamentable sense of sizing, let’s proceed immediately to the extraordinary perspective that would see not just identical pairs of pyjamas bought for two different children but ‘breakfast mishaps’ occurring to both of them, leaving two soiled pyjama tops. Why two? Well, Kate McCann has already described washing one. The other (pictured) was apparently not it, yet also shows clear evidence of a liquid mark, wet or dry, at the neck. If that mark is dry then it is a stain, if wet it is either a fresh stain or a result of washing, the latter being the more likely. Hence the compound coincidence of identical pyjamas undergoing similar treatment, for similar reasons, and to no real purpose into the bargain.

If washing one set of clothes two days before their planned departure was so significant an action as to merit discussion in the context of her daughter’s apparent abduction, then why did Kate McCann describe only the one act of laundry, not both? Why in fact did she bother to describe it at all? Who cares whether the pyjamas the child was wearing were clean?

As Kate wrote in her book:

“The only other unexplained detail I remember from that morning was a large, brown stain I noticed on Madeleine’s pink Eeyore pyjama top. I couldn’t recall seeing it the night before and I had no idea how it might have got there. It looked like a tea stain. Gerry and I do drink quite a bit of tea, and Madeleine, too, would have the odd small cup.”

And later…
“I returned to our apartment before Gerry had finished his tennis lesson and washed and hung out Madeleine’s pyjama top on the veranda.”
Unsurprisingly, Amelie, not yet three years of age at the time, is not identified as a tea drinker.

The washing of Amelie’s pyjamas, whether it occurred or not, was clearly of lesser importance, to the extent that there is no record of its ever happening. In point of fact Kate makes no mention whatsoever, in either her police statements or her book, of ‘Amelie’s pyjamas’.

The tale of the tea-stain has the stamp of a retro-fit explanation for something or other. What that something might be is of course a matter of conjecture, but the story did not make its appearance until Kate McCann’s 6 September statement as Arguida, by which time she would already have escorted those Eeyore pyjamas around Europe and been more than familiar with the published images of them, which clearly show a liquid mark of some kind at the neck. The problem with explaining this mark away as the infamous tea-stain, however, is that she has also described washing the pyjama top on the very morning she claims first to have noticed the stain, Thursday May 3. Hence, any photography of Madeleine’s stained pyjamas can only have been undertaken before then, i.e., hours before Madeleine was reported missing. Perhaps that is why those same pyjamas had to become Amelie’s without delay.

The specificity of pyjama ownership is one question, the photographer’s identity quite another. Ironically, as much as the original background within the disputed photographs points toward a certain party, or parties, as having been responsible, it also points directly away from the dismissive ‘anyone could have done it’ point of view.

If, while visiting a holiday resort in sunny Portugal, or even working in one, you were asked to take a photograph or two of a young child’s pyjamas, wouldn’t you think to lay them on the floor (a table-top being obviously problematic), stand directly above and have the entire image clearly in your viewfinder? You might even decide to deal with the upper and lower garments separately, as did the PJ, so as to guarantee capturing both aspects fully ‘in frame’. That is unless the intention were to make the photographs seem ‘official’; something the appearance in the picture(s) of ceramic floor tiles would not lend itself to. So instead you opt for an item of soft furniture as your background - a bed perhaps - in any event, an item coincidentally upholstered in material identical to that found in apartment 5A, and the same colour to boot. And would you not be all the more surprised if asked to wash the pyjamas beforehand, especially if they had already been washed very recently?

Ironically, this very same viewpoint is expressed by the self-assured ‘Luis Forra’ spokesperson, who published the following on 29 July last year (2018):

“It seems totally ludicrous that Kate or Gerry would go to the effort of flipping a sofa, or removing cushions, in order to take a photo. Why not use a bed, the coffee table, or the dining table? It's inconceivable that the sofa would have been flipped, or cushions removed, with so many other, easier options available. Besides which, in the original photograph the background wasn't blue!”

You will notice that this critic too struggles with the concepts of ‘contrast’ and ‘brightness’ in the handling of digital photographs. It’s as if he’d never even bothered to look at a colour palette. Trust me. If the same subject in each of two photographic reproductions is pink then the background, in this case, is fundamentally blue, be it sky blue, air force blue or any other shade of blue. In any case, why should the Press Association or the Telegraph have seen fit to turn ‘not blue’ into ‘cobalt blue’ before publishing their picture?

What this closing discussion brings to the fore is the idea that the photographer’s choice of background was not haphazard, but deliberate to a degree no casual ‘assistant’ would spontaneously have considered. It was a deliberate effort to disguise the pictures’ origin and make them appear as ‘official’ as the early media headlines subsequently labelled them. It succeeded for years, inasmuch as no-one questioned that textile background, the origin of the garments, the absence in the pictures of a police imprimatur, the shadows that aren’t, the imprecise focussing, or the parallax (converging parallels) more obvious to the professional than the untrained eye.

Such are the questionable details encompassed by this instance of ‘information from the family’ they render the objections cited above about as robust as straw men standing beside a bonfire.

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

'The pyjamas are identical to those Madeleine was wearing and belong to her two-year-old sister Amelie.' (This ‘quote’ is in fact reported speech, the statement appearing three paragraphs beneath the sub-heading ‘Fantastic support’.

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

1:35 Kate McCann:

"So these are actually, apart from the size and the button on the back which Madeleine's doesn't have, these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken."

Further articles on the pyjama problem can be found on the excellent Pamalam site:

In particular: 10-09-2013 'Not a leg to stand on'22/11/2013 'A Bedtime Story' and
18-01-2014 ' Laid to rest'

To find these on Pamalam's site, scroll down to bottom of list and select 'Nigel's McCannfiles'.

A numbered and alphabetical list will appear and for Dr. Roberts and the list numbers 87 to 92 refer to the years 2009 to 2014 .

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

by Milo 19.12.19 23:46

"Retrofit", as used by Robert, is the perfect word for describing the pyjama incident and others in Kate's book or public statements; for example, with the sedation story. Once there was public comment on sedation she decided to put forward that hypothesis herself but with the "sedator' being the abductor not her. And then she raved on with details about how much hair was taken from her for forensic testing (the usual minutiae she introduces that is completely unnecessary). Mind you, the forensic testing was a bit late so she timed her story well.

Now, back to Robert's incredible work. I remember watching a video ofthat pyjama incident (in Germany?) and being confused. And then I read Robert's thesis and realised why I was confused. How would Robert's insights fit another scenario -- what if Madeleine were in day clothes when the fatal incident occurred? Cadaverine was detected on clothing although I am not sure if it belonged to Madeleine and not one of the twins. Nevertheless, was the McCanns' staging - flawed as it was - an attempt to reinforce the notion of a night-time abduction rather than a daytime "accident"?

And one other question if I may - what is the expert opinion on the memory of the twins? Would they remember the incident or its aftermath?

Thank you Robert for your methodical research.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.12.19 15:45

Milo wrote:Now, back to Martin Roberts' incredible work. I remember watching a video of that pyjama incident (in Germany?) and being confused. And then I read Robert's thesis and realised why I was confused. How would Robert's insights fit another scenario - what if Madeleine were in day clothes when the fatal incident occurred? Cadaverine was detected on clothing, although I am not sure if it belonged to Madeleine and not one of the twins. Nevertheless, was the McCanns' staging - flawed as it was - an attempt to reinforce the notion of a night-time abduction rather than a daytime "accident"?

Thank you Robert for your methodical research.

Perceptive observations.

Martin Roberts' theory about Madeleine's pyjamas is hard to follow because he has had to piece together a great many pieces of information, which he has painstakingly researched.

Can I make it easy for those who've not seen it, or who have seen it and are still confused about all the intricacies of his argument. Here is what his article boils down to in just two sentences:

Kate McCann photographed Madeleine's pyjamas on the morning of Thursday 3 May, against the background of a blue hessian settee, and later passed it to a photographic agency in the Algarve who used it to claim it was a Marks & Spencer stock photo. In June 2007 at a German press conference she and Gerry held up the very SAME pair of pyjamas, pretending they were Amelie's - and that she and Madeleine had worn pyjamas with an identical pattern; therefore Madeleine could not have been abducted in her pyjamas.

I would recommend anyone who has not seen the original Martin Roberts article to go through the article patiently and, most of all, study the photo of the pyjamas on the settee, and then look at the video of the pyjamas being held up in Germany.

by Milo 20.12.19 16:08

Tony, Thanks for the short sharp version. My comment about being confused was ambiguous. I wasn't implying that Martin made me even more confused but that he made me realise that I had a right to be confused when the McCanns did their big act with the pyjamas. Just want to make clear that I understood and appreciated the thrust and intricacies of his argument. It beggars belief that the McCs would make up yet another convoluted pre-emptive web of weirdness.