Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'

Milo wrote:"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.

What if Madeleine were in day clothes when the fatal incident occurred?

Kate answers that question clearly when she said

"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."

If they weren't asleep then they had to be awake which clearly and unequivocally tells us that Maddie was not abducted at night whilst her parents and chums were at the tapas drinking and making merry.
Why would the parents lie about that?

Maddie died earlier in the week.
This is proven as they apartment was almost forensically clean with none of the DNA or detritus that comes with having 3 children under the age of 4 and no DNA that could be proven to be from Maddie.
Excuses were given such as a shared toothbrush and gerry having to run back to the UK to get a pillow from supposedly Maddie's bed to provide a sample.
This begs the question as to why the need to go back to Rothley towers when surely there would have been ample DNA from the clothing that Maddie had worn that week and also that day, her shoes, her underwear being clear sources of DNA.
Why was there a distinct lack of DNA from Maddie?
There should have been fingerprints and foot prints from the whole family, especially the children.
DNA from the children especially given their age which would make them sticky with fingers going into mouths and noses as well as the various mess from used diapers which, no matter how hard you try to keep them clean and contamination free would leak, bath time etc.

Police look for what is there that shouldn't be and also, just as importantly, what isn't there that should be.

Hobs wrote:Kate answers that question clearly when she said

"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."

If they weren't asleep then they had to be awake which clearly and unequivocally tells us that Maddie was not abducted at night whilst her parents and chums were at the tapas drinking and making merry.
Why would the parents lie about that?

Sorry Hobs but that is just you interpreting what she said the way you want.

"clearly and unequivocally".

I don't think so.

Try again.

I hate statement analysis and this is an example of why.

Here's an interpretation you may want to consider.

""I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."


What happened is due to someone entering the apartment whilst the children were asleep and they took Madeleine - not because we left the children asleep.


I know you mean well Hobs, but someone has to say it.

This is all about ‘what’ happened and ‘it’ happened.

There is no ‘ due to’ link between the two sentences.

Calheta19 wrote:This is all about ‘what’ happened and ‘it’ happened.

There is no ‘ due to’ link between the two sentences.

"under other" is the link to the previous sentence.

She's saying that in the context of the Daily Mail article that the fact they left the children asleep is not why Madeleine disappeared. She says in the article they are "truly responsible parents". 
It wasn't their fault.

The "other circumstances" were that another person stalked them and abducted Madeleine.

Anyone can do statement analysis.

It proves nothing and is not clear and unequivocal.

BlueBag wrote:

Calheta19 wrote:This is all about ‘what’ happened and ‘it’ happened.

There is no ‘ due to’ link between the two sentences.

"under other" is the link to the previous sentence.

She's saying that in the context of the Daily Mail article that the fact they left the children asleep is not why Madeleine disappeared. She says in the article they are "truly responsible parents". 
It wasn't their fault.

The "other circumstances" were that another person stalked them and abducted Madeleine.

Anyone can do statement analysis.

It proves nothing and is not clear and unequivocal.

Kate knows what happened and that it happened under other circumstances.

Calheta19 wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

Calheta19 wrote:This is all about ‘what’ happened and ‘it’ happened.

There is no ‘ due to’ link between the two sentences.

"under other" is the link to the previous sentence.

She's saying that in the context of the Daily Mail article that the fact they left the children asleep is not why Madeleine disappeared. She says in the article they are "truly responsible parents". 
It wasn't their fault.

The "other circumstances" were that another person stalked them and abducted Madeleine.

Anyone can do statement analysis.

It proves nothing and is not clear and unequivocal.

Kate knows what happened and that it happened under other circumstances.

Knows what happened was not due to them leaving the children asleep - because that was normal and they are truly responsible parents (Daily Mail article context).  She knows it was other circumstances - it wasn't their fault for leaving them asleep.

Logic is about true or not true.

Kate confirms in her reaction that she became a pathological liar since the disappearance of Madeleine. 

The abduction story is no fiction. It’s a lie. Lying always shows what really happened. Otherwise it is pure fiction.

Pause for thought ....

Read the whole report in context, forever mindful of the fact this is a tabloid report - a second hand tabloid report, translated from Portuguese to English.   Said to have been taken from an unconfirmed interview Kate McCann allegedly had with a Portuguese publication.  So say a source close to the source who sourced the information from the initial unidentified source of the source.  

Read on:

Kate McCann: 'Madeleine cried 18 hours a day'

By PAUL HARRIS

Last updated at 17:55 18 September 2007

Kate McCann has told of how Madeleine cried for 18 hours a day as a baby and demanded constant attention when her twin brother and sister were born.

In an interview with a Portuguese magazine, the 39-year-old GP is reported to have discussed her daughter suffering from colic and how, at 20 months old, she reacted to the birth of twins Sean and Amelie.

Mrs McCann's intention seems to have been to illustrate how she and Madeleine bonded so closely during those early years, when mother and daughter were rarely separated.

But her interview was seized on by detectives as valuable evidence in the profile they are building of her.

Officers are seeking medical records to build up a case that she was incapable of controlling four-year-old Madeleine - and that the strain could have provoked her into violence while on holiday in Praia da Luz.

The question of Mrs McCann's relationship with her children first arose last week after the Portuguese press published details alleged to have come from a diary she kept in the Algarve.

The diary extracts purported to demonstrate that she admitted she struggled to cope with her children, and had difficulties with Madeleine because she sapped her strength and emotions.

Mrs McCann's interview with Flash! magazine was conducted before she and her husband Gerry were named as suspects in the case and before the diary details were published.

In it, she spoke openly about her experiences in being a mother to Madeleine, candidly admitting that the first six months with her were "very difficult".

She explained that Madeleine frequently suffered from colic as a baby and, as a toddler, demanded a lot of attention after the birth of the twins.

"She cried practically for 18 hours a day," she said. "I had to carry her around permanently."

This period explained "the strong bond between mother and daughter", she said.

Although the arrival of the twins shook up Madeleine's life, she accepted them very well.

Mrs McCann is quoted as saying: "She managed to deal perfectly with this new reality, although she herself at the time was still a baby."

Her interview emerged as the police case against the couple appeared to be crumbling because of doubts over the reliability of any forensic evidence.

Sources told the Daily Mail that officers may even research information on Munchausen's syndrome by proxy - the condition can compel parents and other adults to harm children.

It has become a routine line of inquiry in child murder investigations since the case of Beverley Allitt, the hospital nurse who killed four children in 1991.

Allitt was convicted in 1993 on 13 charges of murder and causing grievous bodily harm.

Those suffering from the condition often have a high knowledge of medical practice.

In the context of this case however, the suggestion was being seen as another attempt to blacken the McCann name and put the couple under pressure.

In the interview, Mrs McCann insisted that she and her husband were "truly responsible parents" and had committed no crime.

Speaking of the night Madeleine disappeared, she said: "I was sure immediately that she didn't walk out of that room.

"I never doubted that she had been taken by someone.

"I went through a phase of guilt for not knowing what happened to her. I blamed myself for thinking that the place was safe.

"But the certainty that we are truly responsible parents has helped me carry on.

"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."

Asked about whether the decision to leave them meant she and her husband were responsible for their daughter's disappearance, she said: "It cannot be considered a crime.

"Someone committed one, but not us."

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

The stain, the crying and the last photo

I have started to wonder about the "tea stain" again. 

Who of us would be concerned with a little tea stain on a child's PJ top when we were on holidays and we also had twins and nappies to look after (as well as having to run and jog and run again and make and take mobile phone calls and texts.) Who of us would be concerned enough to want to remove the stain immediately. Would we have time to google how to remove tea stains on cotton? And who of us would find it interesting enough to write about. Not me. And then find that maintaining a lie is difficult especially if you have given too much detail in the first place that can't be easily retrieved from memory. Did they slip up in Germany? Too much pathos and Beethoven ruined their concentration hey Verdi? 

I am not revisiting the photos of PJs on blue couch etc. until I read Martin's findings again. I find it hard to let go of an interpretation of the overblown PJ story. (I am repeating what I mentioned yesterday.) The overblown jammies story could have been to ensure that we continued to imagine the incident occurring at night (sleeping/PJ time) rather than in the daytime (no PJs). Any cadaverine in T-shirts and shorts? 
 
I am wondering whether the staining happened during or after the "incident", and was from expelling/spraying cerebral fluid or fluid from chest. There were spots on the walls behind the sofa that were considered to be blood splatters and others that were considered to be something else. There is a limited number of bodily fluids to choose from when considering possibilities.

It is interesting how Amelie commented on Madeleine's jammies. Does she remember that now?? Does she now remember any of it at all? 

And what about the long period of crying time one night, told and retold as Madeleine asking Mummy why she (and Daddy) did not come (to her or to her and Sean) when, according to Mrs Fenn she sobbed and cried out "Daddy, Daddy" non-stop. Mrs Fenn made a big deal of identifying the crying as coming from a child older than the 2, which happened to be the twins' age. Why the need to be definite about age unless you wanted to ensure that people had the imprint on the brain of Madeleine calling out to Daddy when it might have been Amelie calling out for/to Maddie (not Daddy).

As for the last photo - I believe it was the make-up photo not the pool or the tennis balls etc. 

Over and out.

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

Have you considered this possibility?

1. Something happened to Maddie before Thursday

2. The abduction hoax plotters decided they needed a photo of Maddie's pyjamas, so that they could issue a photo of them later (which actually happened as we know)

3. The pyjamas were stained in some way and needed a thorough wash before being photographed

4. In her book Kate writes that she hung the pyjamas out to dry on the Thursday morning - which means they were probably on view to others

5. She needed an explanation for why she was washing the pyjamas. The abduction hoax plotters came up with the idea of 'washing out' a tea stain.

If the above scenario, or similar, is right, then it is not possible to assume she died in her day clothes. Death could have happened at night-time and the pyjamas washed. The 'tea stain' could have been blood. Pretty obviously, the PJ never examined these pyjamas.

========

All very much IMO and this is ONLY a scenario and thinking aloud and therefore is mere speculation

May 7 2007, the day the pyjama of Madeleine with the stain was shown is a crucial day in this unsolved case.

Was it a tea stain or caused a stain by grapefruit or another juice ?

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

Terfenadine, the hay fever medicine which Gerry used  and which is still available despite the fact it was taken off the market because of causing heartfailure, could Be linked to Madeleine’s death.

On the internet one can find the connection.

On May 7 2007, according to the cellphone data, Russell O’Brien, was in the parish of Aljezur at 14.07.44.
At 14.24.00 his cellphone signal was in the Parish Luz. ( PJ documents.

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


The investigators wondered if someone of the other members was with him. Fact is that members of the Tapas group already had access to a motor vehicle. That was their conclusion. 
Matthew Oldfield’s data at the same day confirmed that.
His phone made contact with Luz 3 at 12.04.35 and at 12.06.07 at Budens and at 12.06.55 on the celltower Luz 3 again.

So, two hours before the data from Russel’s phone. So Matthew could be the other member in the car.

I did some research in the parish Aljezur, because this could be the day the corpse of Madeleine was brought to another spot.
For those who want to check this possibility should take a look at Google Earth. The parish of Aljezur is reachable by road the 120 Bensafrim or 125-9. It’s a very remote area. 
Interesting is the  route N 125 9 to the touristic Quinta Dom Joaquim. 
On the N 120 route the parish Aljezur begins at espinhaco de Cao and the “Horses of the Sun. Also a touristic attraction. 
Both routes have places to dump a body in the water. The dam area has a lot of spots to dump without being seen.

I link the pyjama photo and the stain issue and a possible dumpspot of the body, because she could have died of heartfailure, which also could be linked to Coloboma of the iris. As Kate wrote: Madeleine looked very pale and tired. 

I assume the body was buried/ hidden/ dumped naked. 

The question is whose car it was. The Dutch connection ?

the Renault Clio ? 

It is remarkable that it all occur on May 7 2007. Maybe someone has answers wether it is connected or a coincidence.

has anyone given a thought about maddies Pajamas,she may have taken more than one set of P j,that has been on my mind a bit ,of late,has anyone else not wondered about this ?i would have felt that for child so young ,might need a second set .and as they were so tiny would not take much space in suitcase >?

You've been coming up with this line for over a decade [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Remember that the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] held up Maddie's pyjamas at two press conferences in London & Germany on 5 and 7 June 2007, the very ones that Kate McCann says she washed (why? - for a 'tea stain?) and photographed on the morning of Thursday 3 May, and were subsequently used to provide a bogus 'stock photos' of pyjamas similar to those worn by Madeleine.

Dr Martin Roberts brilliantly exposed this deception in his article.

Remember, too, that at these two conferences, the McCanns maintained that they were AMELIE's pyjamas - but which Dr Roberts proved were IDENTICAL to the ones Kate McCann had photographed.

Also ask yourself why Amelie, seeing her parents handling MADELEINE's pyjamas, exclaimed:

"Maddie's jammies! Where is Maddie?"

You turn up on this forum [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], like a bad penny, only when you make vain efforts to undermine the best evidence in the case.

Sad

Not only in Germany but also on June 7 2007 in Amsterdam, the Hilton hotel press conference.

I think it more likely than not that the McCanns packed more than one pair of pyjamas for Madeleine and the twins.  Even for only a weeks holiday, kids are so mucky.

The Dr Martin Roberts article I've read many times and I still can't make head nor tail of it.  Particularly as the whole theory appears to based around this..

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

Firstly, you have to believe what Kate McCann tells you - she washed Madeleine's pyjama top because she noticed a dry stain, possibly tea blah blah blah.

Then you have to reconcile with the claim that the above image was taken by Kate McCann or a source close thereto, when said garments were still wet.  I ask you .... would the well adjusted doctors two make such a crass error of judgement?

Then you have to consider the press report said to be quoting a McCann family member .... Maddie's jammies or words to that effect.  Even if, and that's a very big if, the twin did say such a thing, she was of very young age at the time.  Anything pink frilly girly would be Maddie's jammies.

Then you have to ponder how this theory fits-in with the compelling evidence that Madeleine McCann 'disappeared' before the claimed 10:00pm alert on the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007.

Wouldn't a simpler explanation be to accord with the McCann assertion that the family was being watched by an opportunist predator?  The dummy run that went belly-up, intimating that Madeleine had been drugged hence the reference to her being washed-out on the evening of 3rd May 2007?

The McCanns team don't make mistakes, every move has been carefully planned and executed, hence today we are here and they are there.

Sorry, I don't buy this theory.  I have in the past presented more detail of my scepticism which would probably make more sense (to the more attentive reader) than this brief narrative.  If I come across it I will bump just for old times' sake!

No disrespect to Dr Martin Roberts.

I agree with Verdi.

I think this much ado about nothing.

They are not that stupid.

crusader wrote:The photograph taken of  Amalies pyjamas on the " blue " background was shown in the newspaper, El Periodico and credited to Luis Forra on 11th May 07.

What I'd like to know is, when did the McCann's ask L. Forra to photograph the pyjamas.

I've also read somewhere that the same photo was shown in the Telegraph 7th May? I can't at the moment verify this information.

I think Dr Martin Roberts deals with this in his two analyses of the pyjamas.

There is good evidence that a photo of Madeleine's pyjamas was taken by Kate McCann on the morning of Thursday 3 May, the very day Madeleine was reported missing. 

It is very possible that this photo was conveyed to the L. Forra agency that very day. After all, one of the great mysteries in this case is what Gerry McCann was doing during that afternoon. If you examine the various accounts, we are told that he played tennis in the afternoon, then had to abandon it because of an aggravated Achilles tendon injury, then was merrily playing 'social tennis' again between about 6.30pm & 7.30pm. I don't know if [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] can get us the various references to what he was/was not doing that afternoon but they are very revealing (n the sense that they reveal a series of contradictions).

The L Forra agency may well turn out to be one of Robert Murat's contacts, and it is possible that he took the photo to the L Forra agency that very day. It may help to explain why he lied so much (17 lies) about what exactly he was doing from 1 to 3 May.

It is a pity that one or both of the photos of the pyjamas shown by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] did not include the all-important wisp of cotton to be found on one of the leg bottoms. It is a crucial piece of evidence. I can't find these right now but I know they are shown in Roberts' 'Nightwear Job'. If someone could produce both photos for us (1. Pyjamas photographed against a blue settee, 2. Pyjamas held up at the June 2007 news conference) we could then see that they are one and the same.

Incidentally the claim that Madeleine had two pairs of pyjamas on that holiday is completely unsubstantiated. The idea was brought into the pyjamas debate by the McCanns at a later date after people began querying the pyjamas issue in internet forums.

It is not of evidential value to say: "It is likely that they took two pair of pyjamas". 

I would argue it is extremely likely that they did not. When you have to minimise your baggage allowance, you don't take two sets of pyjamas with you for each of your children. Besides, why was Kate McCann washing those pyjamas?

Was it because there WAS a stain on them, and that stain needed to be removed before the pyjamas were photographed?

And if you had two pair of pyjamas with you on holiday f or a 3-year-old children, would you not simply get the other pair of pyjamas out, instead of cranking up the washing machine and getting out the washing powder?

On top of all that, when Amelie saw Madeleine's pyjamas, why did she blurt out: "Maddie's jammies! Where is Maddie?"

Is that not the natural reaction of a child to seeing her sister's pyjamas? Anyone who has ever had children knows fine well that one thing young children are rock hard, 100% certain about is whose T-shirt, vest, pants and socks they are!

There's one more thing we might consider. If Maddie had two pairs of pyjamas on that holiday, is it possible the other pair might have had Madeleine's DMA on them.

I wish more forum members would think all these things through, and would read Dr Roberts' paper through again. Admittedly, his article is hard work, after all, he has researched many bits of evidence to arrive at his conclusion. But it is worth the effort.

As for the poster ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) who complained that I was being beastly to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], I will just say this.

I am not usually negative towards fellow posters. However, we have seen this poster's conduct here for over a decade now. Any member can inspect his/her posting history. See how often s/he steps in with the 'two sets of pyjamas' theory just as members here start engaging seriously with Dr Roberts' evidence in 'Nightwear Job'.                             


   

.

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

Bigger versions for clicking:

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

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


In this photo, if you click on full size, you can also see the wisp of cotton on the bottom edge of the pyjama top.

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

One option is that Luis Forra was corrupt.

Going, for a moment, with your reasonable suggestion that he was probably not corrupt, then a possible scenario is that the McCanns, or an agent of the McCanns, gave him this photo TELLING him that this was a photo of a catalogue 'stock' photo.

I am grateful to Jill for swiftly posting all the photos we need and for @crusader's helpful concession that the pyjamas are IDENTICAL in both photos.

This is so mind-blowing that it demands further investigation. IMO Dr Martin Roberts has carried out flawless research.

Perhaps he could have arranged his material a touch more clearly.

Luis Forra was corrupt?  For goodness sake get a grip - how many more press agency photographers are to be named and shamed in this fiasco?

Firstly Paul Grover for having his name appended to the provocative images of Madeleine McCann, seemingly originating from Uncle Jon Corner. Then we have Ian West, the press photographer who attended the Branson Kensington Gardens charity bash, named and shamed just because he is a McCann supporter.  Now we have Luis Forra?

Is this not a case of LOQKING for the missing piece of the jigsaw that just doesn't exist?

I have clearly laid out by observations on the subject of Dr Martin Roberts article throughout this thread.  Because my commentary doesn't fit the desired train of thought - the global conspiracy theory, it has been ignored.

My view remains sound.  It's pointless wasting any more time presenting fact and logic to blind eyes and deaf ears.

Anyone interested, read through the entire thread and consider what's said rather than who said it.  Form your own opinions.

Verdi wrote:Then we have Ian West, the press photographer who attended the Branson Kensington Gardens charity bash, named and shamed just because he is a McCann supporter. 

Clearly you don't know much about Ian 'Muratfan' West who relentlessly attacked McCann sceptics and trolled this forum for years much like andyfish. He was no press photographer, he was just there that night taking photographs for the McCanns. He was actually a disgraced ex-copper from Norfolk, and friend of Nigel Nessling (who was let off with a slapped wrist for having in his possession a catalogue of many thousands of child abuse images), and who ended up with a police caution himself.

Its possably not worth saying this BUT little amily i dont believe came out with the sentence that it has been talked about for a long time  over the pyjamas ,her mum thought its agood ideato use that.We have been talking about this for many years now ,is there anyone  else thinkin this?just a waste of space .joyce1938

It was actually John McCann who said that Joyce.