Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'

by **Tony Bennett** 10.01.20 8:51

Verdi wrote:
A very devious tactic...

Who on the forum is guilty of using "very devious tactics?"

by **Verdi** 10.01.20 11:31

Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:
A very devious tactic...

Who on the forum is guilty of using "very devious tactics?"

I can't be specific but there have been very many over the years. I think now, with due diligence of CMOMM admin team, the problem has been all but eradicated - with the exception of a few strays that come and go.

by **Verdi** 10.01.20 11:58

It would appear some confusion has arisen between Madeleine McCann's pyjamas and Marks & Spencer's input. I posted about this somewhere upthread.

The PJ (the Policia Judiciaria, not the pyjamas) required a pair of pyjamas the same, or near as possible, supplied by Marks and Spencer for forensics, to compare fibres harvested at the crime scene..

Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job' - Page 10 Scree406

by **Verdi** 10.01.20 12:06

by Guest 10.01.20 14:19

Thanks Verdi.

I hope people are seeing that there is nothing to Dr Martin Robert's "seeds of doubt" by now.

by **Verdi** 10.01.20 15:12

Reverting to Uncle John McCann's alleged comment reported by the press, let's just look at the wording..

"That was terrible for them," says John McCann, Mr McCann's elder brother, who has also travelled to Portugal to help search for his niece.

"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?' But she is too young to understand. And how do you explain? All we know is that Madeleine needs her family. She loves us, we love her. It is time for her to come home."

"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?'

Kate dressed her younger daughter in the pyjamas of her elder daughter, her missing/abducted/possibly in the hands of a paeophile/possibly dead three year old daughter affraid

?

Never trust a word you read in the press without corroborative evidence to support.

Note: Above 'quote' is taken from The Morning Sydney Herald dated 15th May 2007 - only twelve days after Madeleine's alleged disappearance.

by **Verdi** 10.01.20 15:25

If further evidence is required to throw doubt on the 'quote' attributed to Gerry McCann's brother, John McCann, you only need read this report by the Sydney Morning Herald..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13561p875-media-mayhem-mccann-media-nonsense-of-the-day#412819
......................

Talk about marketing sensationalism. If that's the best he can do - Sydney should shut-up shop and go home!

by plebgate 10.01.20 18:07

Where did the report that Mrs let Maddie's sister wear Maddie's sandals come from?

by crusader 10.01.20 18:30

I saw this on the BBC website dated 1st October 2007.

"Little Amelie is wearing Madeleine's sandals and she is in and out of the car. Cuddly toys are in it. Madeleine's toys are in it. Madeleine's tops are in it that Amelie is wearing. It's nonsense," she said.

Madeleine's grandmother told the Belfast Telegraph.

by crusader 10.01.20 18:45

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7021674.stm

Try this in your search bar.@plebgate.

by plebgate 10.01.20 18:50

As many have commented why weren't Maddies sandals, socks etc handed over for DNA instead of the pillow case retrieved from the house in Leicester?

If granny said that the reports of Amelie wearing Maddie's clothing was nonsense it does make one wonder why they weren't offered up for DNA tests?

by **sharonl** 10.01.20 19:26

plebgate wrote:As many have commented why weren't Maddies sandals, socks etc handed over for DNA instead of the pillow case retrieved from the house in Leicester?

If granny said that the reports of Amelie wearing Maddie's clothing was nonsense it does make one wonder why they weren't offered up for DNA tests?

Wouldn't Kate's prop, Cuddkecat also have been good for DNA testing?

by crusader 10.01.20 19:54

@plebgate Granny didn't say the reports of Amalie wearing Madeleine's clothing was nonsense.

She said claims that DNA evidence has been found in the Mccann's hire car were nonsense.

Did you find the link I gave you to the BBC website?

by **Tony Bennett** 10.01.20 20:11

The last six posts have strayed off topic into issues around Madeleine's DNA. The two issues are not by any means unrelated, but I would like to return to the topic of the two 'pyjama' photos please.

If we are going to refer to them again I shall call the first photo/pyjamas 'The Luis Forra Photo' and the second 'The Press Conference Photo'.

First I would like to set out two facts which I think we can all agree are proved:

1. The Luis Forra and Press Conference Photos are of the same pair of pyjamas, and
2. At the Press Conferences, the McCanns said categorically "These are Amelie's pyjamas".

I now want to look at things from a different angle and want to ask all members & guests contributing to this thread these question:

1. When these pyjamas were first photographed, did the McCanns say to the Luis Forra agency, or to Leicestershire Police, or to the PJ, or to any of the newspapers, or to anyone else: "These are Amelie's pyjamas?"

2. On a scale from 0 (highly unlikely) to 10 (highly likely), how likely is it that on that holiday, the McCanns dressed both Madeleine and Amelie in identical, or near-identical pyjamas?

As for question 2, I will answer my own question thus: 0

by **Jill Havern** 10.01.20 20:39

Not wishing to put a downer on proceedings, I will say that when my granddaughters were younger (up to ages 6 and 4) they were usually dressed in identical clothes.

Whenever I bought something for the eldest granddaughter I would buy a smaller size for the other one.

My daughter also bought identical clothes for them.

In fact, this Christmas I bought them identical hoodies in different sizes. It saves one of them sulking over the other one having something they like!

If you get me drift.

I think it's quite common actually, especially for little girls when they're similar ages.

by **Jill Havern** 10.01.20 20:48

I would also add though, that when they were of an age to dress themselves they never picked up the wrong item of matching clothing and tried to put it on.

They were both around the age of two when they started dressing/undressing themselves...so they did recognise sizes.

by **sharonl** 10.01.20 23:07

Jill Havern wrote:Not wishing to put a downer on proceedings, I will say that when my granddaughters were younger (up to ages 6 and 4) they were usually dressed in identical clothes.

Whenever I bought something for the eldest granddaughter I would buy a smaller size for the other one.

My daughter also bought identical clothes for them.

In fact, this Christmas I bought them identical hoodies in different sizes. It saves one of them sulking over the other one having something they like!

If you get me drift.

I think it's quite common actually, especially for little girls when they're similar ages.

That's what usually happens, children of similar ages get treated equally and are dressed at similarly. But, we are dealing here with a woman who on taking her young daughters, less than two years apart, to play at the poolside and the park, one in casual shorts and t-shirt as you would expect, the other in an expensive new outfit bought from Next. Furthermore, on route to the park, she thought to herself, how lovely the one child looked. Is that normal?

There are no photos where Madeleine and Amelie are dressed the same, so I guess that's not McCann practice.

I should imagine, that with there being less than two years between them, and Madeleine being small, Amelie may have acquired some of her clothes.

I cannot really believe that Amelie would have been comfortable in Madeleine's sandals, they would have been too big and may have caused her to trip. Did Kate really put these on her? If so, why?

by crusader 10.01.20 23:23

Did Kate say she bought the pajamas? I seem to recall seeing somewhere, Kate saying " they were bought from M&S ".

If someone, say a Grandma or an Aunt bought them, they could have bought identical pajamas, in different sizes.

And if they are anything like me, they would have bought them a size too big ie, growing room.

by **Verdi** 11.01.20 1:09

I see no reason to doubt nor question the original documented image of the Marks & Spencer's style pyjamas, accredited to Luis Forra for the European Press Agency. Also used by the PJ for the purpose of their investigation.

Nor can I see any reason to doubt the European tour, where the pyjamas were used as a good marketing ploy, was anything other than a well orchestrated publicity stunt. Enter .... Clarence Mitchell.

Never underestimate the tenacity of the Portuguese police force - they would have sussed out such subterfuge in the blink of an eye.

In the grand scheme of things - does pyjamarama really matter one iota?

The evidence contained in the documented PJ investigation = no abudcution. Pyjamas of any description are nothing but another distraction.

Tanner said this, Smith said that, Mitchell said the other. End of the day - Madeleine McCann was not abducted.

Stick to the basics.

by Guest 11.01.20 8:33

Jill Havern wrote:Not wishing to put a downer on proceedings, I will say that when my granddaughters were younger (up to ages 6 and 4) they were usually dressed in identical clothes.

My mother did that a lot.

3 boys - there are some cute photos.

When we were not wearing the same it was hand-me-downs (but I was the oldest big grin

)

by **Tony Bennett** 11.01.20 9:15

Verdi wrote:Never underestimate the tenacity of the Portuguese police force - they would have sussed out such subterfuge in the blink of an eye.

I think a more accurate statement about this whole case might be this:

Never underestimate the degree of deception, chicanery, false leads, half-truths and outright lies which were capable of deceiving the Portuguese police force.

To start with, the claims of Jane Tanner about 'Bundleman'. Was this an invention which initially deceived them?

Still more relevantly, were the Portuguese police deceived by the preposterous evidence given by Nuno Lourenco?

YES. ABSOLUTELY. This man claimed his daughter was very nearly kidnapped from just outside a cafe in Sagres, on Sunday 29 April. Yet he chose to report this alleged criminal act only on Saturday morning, 5 May, as the plane carrying Wojcek Krokowski and his wife/partner took off from Faro to Berlin. Clearly Lourenco's statement is an utter fabrication from beginning to end, including the claim he made that the date-and-time stamp 'proved' that he took a photo of Krokowski's car on 29 April. So similar was Lourenco's description to that which was given by Tanner of 'Bundleman' that Goncalo Amaral and his team chased the Krokowskis to Berlin and Warsaw. "It is the same man", they thought

Did the Portuguese police consider that Jane Tanner's descriptions of the alleged abductor were almost certainly based on Krokowski? 'Not a tourist', 'classic shoes', 'cloth clothes', same build, height, age etc.?

No.

Are they considering this line of enquiry today?

Probably not.

The Portuguese police asserted that Madeleine McCann was proven to be alive at around 5.30pm to 6.00pm on Thursday 3 May. They did so based on accepting the evidence of Catriona Baker on this point as 'credible' and 'independent'.

Can that be said today?

NO. There are major contradictions between the evidence of Catriona Baker, Gerry McCann, Kate McCann and Charlotte Pennington about this alleged event. These have been highlighted notably by Lizzy HideHo, Richard Hall and by a number of CMOMM members on here. We also now have evidence that the McCanns may have known Cat Baker BEFORE that holiday.

@Verdi spoke of the 'tenacity' of the Portuguese police, a statement I would heartily endorse.

But was that tenacity sufficient to penetrate the dense fog of deception, chicanery, false leads, half-truths, outright lies and subterfuge with which they were assaulted?

Unfortunately not.

And that includes their inability to penetrate the true source of that Luis Forra-created photo on Saturday 5 May.

by **Jill Havern** 11.01.20 9:17

sharonl wrote:
Jill Havern wrote:Not wishing to put a downer on proceedings, I will say that when my granddaughters were younger (up to ages 6 and 4) they were usually dressed in identical clothes.

Whenever I bought something for the eldest granddaughter I would buy a smaller size for the other one.

My daughter also bought identical clothes for them.

In fact, this Christmas I bought them identical hoodies in different sizes. It saves one of them sulking over the other one having something they like!

If you get me drift.

I think it's quite common actually, especially for little girls when they're similar ages.

That's what usually happens, children of similar ages get treated equally and are dressed at similarly. But, we are dealing here with a woman who on taking her young daughters, less than two years apart, to play at the poolside and the park, one in casual shorts and t-shirt as you would expect, the other in an expensive new outfit bought from Next. Furthermore, on route to the park, she thought to herself, how lovely the one child looked. Is that normal?

There are no photos where Madeleine and Amelie are dressed the same, so I guess that's not McCann practice.

I should imagine, that with there being less than two years between them, and Madeleine being small, Amelie may have acquired some of her clothes.

I cannot really believe that Amelie would have been comfortable in Madeleine's sandals, they would have been too big and may have caused her to trip. Did Kate really put these on her? If so, why?

Not to mention the red t-shirt that had cadaver scent on it but was later being seen worn by Sean.

by **Jill Havern** 11.01.20 9:32

Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:Never underestimate the tenacity of the Portuguese police force - they would have sussed out such subterfuge in the blink of an eye.

I think a more accurate statement about this whole case might be this:

Never underestimate the degree of deception, chicanery, false leads, half-truths and outright lies which were capable of deceiving the Portuguese police force.

To start with, the claims of Jane Tanner about 'Bundleman'. Was this an invention which initially deceived them?

Still more relevantly, were the Portuguese police deceived by the preposterous evidence given by Nuno Lourenco?

YES. ABSOLUTELY. This man claimed his daughter was very nearly kidnapped from just outside a cafe in Sagres, on Sunday 29 April. Yet he chose to report this alleged criminal act only on Saturday morning, 5 May, as the plane carrying Wojcek Krokowski and his wife/partner took off from Faro to Berlin. Clearly Lourenco's statement is an utter fabrication from beginning to end, including the claim he made that the date-and-time stamp 'proved' that he took a photo of Krokowski's car on 29 April. So similar was Lourenco's description to that which was given by Tanner of 'Bundleman' that Goncalo Amaral and his team chased the Krokowskis to Berlin and Warsaw. "It is the same man", they thought

Did the Portuguese police consider that Jane Tanner's descriptions of the alleged abductor were almost certainly based on Krokowski? 'Not a tourist', 'classic shoes', 'cloth clothes', same build, height, age etc.?

No.

Are they considering this line of enquiry today?

Probably not.

The Portuguese police asserted that Madeleine McCann was proven to be alive at around 5.30pm to 6.00pm on Thursday 3 May. They did so based on accepting the evidence of Catriona Baker on this point as 'credible' and 'independent'.

Can that be said today?

NO. There are major contradictions between the evidence of Catriona Baker, Gerry McCann, Kate McCann and Charlotte Pennington about this alleged event. These have been highlighted notably by Lizzy HideHo, Richard Hall and by a number of CMOMM members on here. We also now have evidence that the McCanns may have known Cat Baker BEFORE that holiday.

@Verdi spoke of the 'tenacity' of the Portuguese police, a statement I would heartily endorse.

But was that tenacity sufficient to penetrate the dense fog of deception, chicanery, false leads, half-truths, outright lies and subterfuge with which they were assaulted?

Unfortunately not.

And that includes their inability to penetrate the true source of that Luis Forra-created photo on Saturday 5 May.

Excellent post Tony.

The PJ stood no chance in the early days.

No way could the McCanns have planned all this subterfuge in a couple of hours on the night of the 3rd May on top of dealing with their shock and grief over the alledged ~~abduction~~ sudden death of their three-year-old daughter aswell as cleaning the apartment, setting the scene and getting themselves ready to go out for dinner at the Tapas.

"If Madeleine McCann's pyjamas had not, in fact, been abducted then neither had Madeleine McCann."

by **Tony Bennett** 11.01.20 9:34

I am grateful for the three replies so far to my two questions above, which were:

1. When these pyjamas were first photographed, did the McCanns say to the Luis Forra agency, or to Leicestershire Police, or to the PJ, or to any of the newspapers, or to anyone else: "These are Amelie's pyjamas?"

2. On a scale from 0 (highly unlikely) to 10 (highly likely), how likely is it that on that holiday, the McCanns dressed both Madeleine and Amelie in identical, or near-identical pyjamas?

The evidence from Jill and @BlueBag is of some interest. It proves that SOME parents do dress siblings alike. But is that evidence that this is a common practice? Not at all. Our own day-to-day observations around town tell us just the opposite. It is a small majority who do this.

Try doing a survey next time you are in town.

@sharon's evidence is, however, weighty.She has observed, quite rightly, that this was NOT a practice of the McCann family. We have multiple photos and videos to prove this. Even the fabled 'Last Photo' shows the two girls in VERY different attire. Is there even ONE photo that anyone can reproduce that shows Amelie and Madeleine in identical garb? If so, let us see it.

Therefore the odds AGAINST Amelie and Madeleine having identical Eeyore pyjamas must surely be very high?

Now let me ask a third question:

3. Was the original Luis Forra photograph of the pyjamas taken by him or one of his staff - or by an amateur photographer?

Here are two versions of the photo, and also of the blue settee in the McCanns' apartment:

Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job' - Page 10 Maddie12

Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job' - Page 10 Maddie13

Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job' - Page 10 Maddie14

Here are Dr Martin Roberts' observations on the quality of that original photograph:

QUOTE

Alongside a suite of photographs taken at Lagos Marina by Kate McCann is an introductory memo, written by DC Markley of Leicester Police on or about the 8 May and headed up, 'Information from the Family'. Here also one finds the only copy (in black and white) of the McCanns' official photograph of Madeleine's pyjamas (Outros Apensos Vol. II - Apenso VIII, p.342). Rather than its being a PJ production, afterwards passed to the McCanns, it seems the photograph was actually a McCann production fed to the PJ, an observation wholly concordant with the fact that it was actually the McCanns who first revealed this photograph to the press, on Monday 7 May, three days before the PJ released it (as reported by Ian Herbert, the Independent, 11.5.07).

Any illusion that the image in question was the result of a McCann representative's commissioning their own studio photograph of 'off-the-shelf' UK merchandise may soon be dispelled. It is an amateur snapshot. Taken in ambient (day) light, against a coloured (as opposed to neutral) background, it is slightly out of focus and displays detectable signs of parallax. It is not something even a journeyman professional would admit to.

And yet, bold as brass, it represents 'information from the family'.

Perhaps it was produced by a member of the McCann entourage that descended on Praia da Luz over the long weekend 4-6 May? Then again, perhaps not. As Kate McCann explains in her book, 'madeleine' (p.109):

“Everyone had felt helpless at home and had rushed out to Portugal to take care of us and to do what they could to find Madeleine. When they arrived, to their dismay they felt just as helpless – perhaps more so, having made the trip in the hope of achieving something only to discover it was not within their power in Luz any more than it had been in the UK.”

UNQUOTE

by Milo 11.01.20 12:15

I understand and accept what Tony is saying about the PJ illusion but I am still having trouble with Kate's reasons. Often she does the foreshadowing so maybe circumstances didn't turn out to be what she had expected (worried about) when she made up that piece about Amelie. She made up the sharing toothbrushes story FGS but we know why she did that. I am more interested in that red T-shirt with cadaverine, worn by Sean. I am also taken by the photo of Madeleine in her long-sleeved pink PJs. And I still want to know why Jane and her TAPAs husband/partner split up. I have read everything, watched their every grimace, sneer, smile, touch of each other, bruise and I still don't get it.