Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'

Jill Havern wrote:

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.

Calheta19 wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It’s all about DNA. The inconclusive DNA profile of Madeleine made this saga an endless loop tape.

The McCann’s clan made a lot of mistakes. This issue is one of them.Guilty as hell they are.

Verdi wrote: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?

REPLY:  Nobody is saying that Luis Forra is corrupt, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], if you care to re-read the comments made about him. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] was trying to figure out why and when and from whom Luis Forra received the image that was published in the newspapers on I think 8 to 10 May. The presumption from Dr Martin Roberts article is that Kate McCann took this photo on the morning of Thursday 3 May (when she washed them). Somehow that photo got to Luis Forra. I have offered two possible explanation. I said that the most likely was that the McCanns, or an agent of theirs, had handed it to Forra, making out that it was a genuine 'stock photo' from a Marks & Spencer catalogue, which Forra understandably believed.

But I also do not exclude the possibility that Forra was corrupt, in the sense that so many are corrupt in this world, wiling to take money for a favour etc. Isn't this case full of corrupt individuals...Nuno Lourenco, Kevin Halligen and Antonio Giminez Raso to name three. How much was Clarence Mitchell paid? Did he always tell the truth?          

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?

REPLY: Paul Grover is at least interesting. He moves amongst the 'great and the good'. I believe he has photographed many celebrities. Whoever took those photos of Madeleine, and we don't know, it seems he acquired them, and put his name to them. Some are undoubtedly controversial. I believe Jill has dealt with the Ian West/'muratfan' issue. Ian West had other usernames on Twitter. On one of them he said he specialised in photographing children.     
  
Is this not a case of LOQKING for the missing piece of the jigsaw that just doesn't exist?

REPLY: Absolutely not. This thread is about the photographic and other evidence provided by Dr Martin Roberts.

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.

REPLY: Practically every member of this forum, and every guest, believes that there has been an elaborate conspiracy in this case, aided and abetted by dozens of senior members of the government, police and security  services, to cover up the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann. Are you not one of us, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]?   
My view remains sound.  It's pointless wasting any more time presenting fact and logic to blind eyes and deaf ears.

REPLY: Dr Martin Roberts, and others who back his analysis of the pyjamas, are blind and deaf conspiracy  theorists? I believe we have a thread on the forum devoted entirely to all the articles ever published by dr Martin Roberts. Should we remove it?   

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

REPLY: I agree with that. But I would add this: look very carefully at the two photographs: 1. Alleged stock photo on blue background and 2. Pyjamas held up by the McCanns at the June 2007 press conference.

Dr Martin Roberts wrote:Why on earth should the PJ have seemingly undertaken the same photographic work twice, involving two quite different sets of pyjamas?

Dr Martin Roberts wrote:The image in question was 'released' to the world's media in the late afternoon of 10 May, 2007, following a press conference that day. It was no doubt assumed by many that, since the PJ released the photographs (there is more than one), the PJ themselves must have taken them. Yet a film distributor who arranges the release of a 'blockbuster' is hardly likely to have spent the previous months/years actually doing the filming.

crusader wrote:The 2 wisps of cotton are what convinced me that the 2 are the same. Also the shading on both is exactly the same.

Look how they are arranged, the very slight folds on the bottom of the legs. The gap between the top and the bottoms & the folds on the cap sleeves. No doubt in my mind at all.

But in addition I have since noted that there is a SECOND wisp of cotton - on the wearer's left side, at the bottom (RHS as you look at the photo). And I think I can see the very same wisp of cotton on the press conference photo.

The family, who live at Rothley in Leicestershire, said the pyjamas had white bottoms with a floral design, and a pink, short-sleeved top with a picture of the Winnie the Pooh character Eeyore. They were bought from M&S last year.

crusader wrote:What I was trying to say in an earlier post (Not very clearly) was:
Photographs had been published on the 8th May on the BBC news online & in the Algarve Resident newspaper, of a pair of pajamas more like the ones the Mccann's said Madeleine was wearing when she was abducted.

Why, when there was already a photograph of a pair of pajamas  more like the ones the Mccann's said Madeleine was wearing when she was abducted, were the Mccann's still holding up a pair of Amalie's pajamas on 5th 6th & 7th June.

crusader wrote:Just to be clear, there WERE photo's published on 8th May BBC news online with the words: A set of Pajamas identical to the ones Madeleine was wearing.