Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'

@Tony Bennett wrote:@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.

Yes, I believe it was.  The problems they encountered preventing the continuity of a routine police investigation, was being stymied by outside interference - primarily emanating from the UK.

I'm reminded of Gonçalo Amaral's words..

If a mistake was made, it was in taking so long to make the couple arguidos. Too much politics, that’s what there was, too much politics and not enough policing.

I’d say rather that the mistake was in treating the McCanns “with tweezers.” From the start of the investigation, we realised that certain things did not add up and yet, they continued to benefit from favourable treatment; that’s what’s not normal!

If memory serves me well, it was about the 4th May 2007 the PJ started to realise the inconsistencies in the witness statements.  I truly believe, if the PJ were left alone to do their job without impediment, we wouldn't be here today discussing the complete mystery of Madeleine McCann.

Milo wrote: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.

Thank you for your further contributions to this thread. @Milo.

Please be sure to note that ANY question, any request for further information and any constructive comment is always welcome on CMOMM.

Do not be deterred because some of us have been around on this for a very long time. As you can see from the way the debate has gone in the past few weeks, we are still searching for answers, and there are robust opinions being put forward. This is a forum that has always been fully focussed on the search for the truth about what really happened to Madeleine. And has always allowed robust but fair debate.

So far I have posed three questions for members to consider, regarding the pyjamas, and I would welcome any and all answers.

The first three are:

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?

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

Now here are some more:

4. We know (see upthread) that the Luis Forra agency pyjamas photo was 'created' on Saturday 5 May 2007 (the same day I believe that the Tennis Balls Photo was 'created'). Did Luis Forra, or one of his employees, have these pyjamas in front of him and take this photograph? OR, was a photographing a photograph?

5. If the Luis Forra agency had the pyjamas in front of them on Saturday 5 May, (a) who took them there? - and (b) who took the photo?

6. Thinking of all the photos of that very pair of pyjamas (the ones with the wisps of cotton on the leg and jacket), if these belonged to Amelie, why did the McCanns and Luis Forra not tell the police and the media who published the photos: "Look, these are Amelie's pyjamas. They're exactly the same as Madeleine's?"    

I had thought that Luis Forra had photographed the PJs in 5a using the blue couch as background.

But he can't have as mccann's had been moved out of the Flat in the early hours of 4th and only allowed back to collect their bellongings the morning after,under supervision.

crusader wrote:I had thought that Luis Forra had photographed the PJs in 5a using the blue couch as background.

But he can't have as McCanns had been moved out of the flat in the early hours of 4th and only allowed back to collect their belongings the morning after, under supervision.

An excellent point, @crusader, thank you.

Assuming the pyjamas were photographed against that blue settee (which seems very probable), then that is yet one more pointer to the McCanns having taken the photo of those pyjamas in the morning of Thursday 3 May (the time when Kate McCann says in her book that she washed them).  Or possibly even earlier, who knows?

If you've read Dr Martin Roberts' paper, you'll see that he is very knowledgeable about photographs and photography.

Within his paper he explains exactly why he considers there are signs of dampness on those pyjamas in Forra's photograph. 

What you say again points to the McCanns having taken that photograph - as you quite rightly suggest - BEFORE the abduction alarm was raised.

It was then obviously taken to, or handed to, the Forra agency by the McCanns, or someone on their behalf.

(Probably the latter)

Unless 5H had a blue couch as well . ?
Not likely, since the furnishing is not the standard issue to the first person who buys off plans, but we must never rule out possibilities.. .

PeterMac wrote:Unless 5H had a blue couch as well?

Not likely, since the furnishing is not the standard issue to the first person who buys off plans, but we must never rule out possibilities...

Dr Martin Roberts deals with this issue thus, @PeterMac: 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE 

The Paynes, the Oldfields and the O'Briens can be ruled out. 

Only the Paynes' apartment incorporated any soft furnishings in blue, but of a different quality to the plain open-weave material on display here. 

During the early morning of Friday 4 May, 2007, the McCanns were re-located to alternative accommodation in apartment 4G - another in which blue soft furnishings were conspicuous by their absence (it was appointed in beige throughout).

Added to which the concern, lest we forget, is with photography involving a pair of pyjamas known to have been in the McCanns' possession from the outset.

UNQUOTE

These are actually Amelie's pyjama's, they're the same only obviously smaller ....

These are actually, apart from the size and the button at the back which Madeleine's didn't have;  these are actually the pyjamas Madeleine was wearing when she was taken ....

Kate McCann

Press Agency Archive
[Shows back fastening that Kate McCann says Madeleine's didn't have]


PJ Release
[Shows back fastening that Kate McCann says Madeleine's didn't have]


PJ Files
[Pyjamas supplied by Marks & Spencers said to be equal to those belonging to Madeleine, show no back fastening as Kate McCann said Madeleine's didn't have.

Verdi wrote:

REST SNIPPED

Thank you @Verdi for publishing these photos altogether on one page.

I should just add this for clarification:

The Luis Forra/'P J Release' photo, with the bright blue background, was published in the Daily Telegraph.

The same pyjamas but with a grey-black background ('Press Agency archive) was published in the Daily Mail.

Both on 10 May.

--------

EDITED TO ADD:

These facts may be of interest.

On 8 and 9 May Gerry McCann, Alex Woolfall and Michael Wright handed in two separate computer disks to the Portuguese police which they said were all of the relevant photos that they had from that holiday.

BUT...since then we have discovered the following:

Tennis Balls Photo - 'created on 5 May', presumably from another photograph, genuine or photoshopped, but (see PeterMac's excellent two analyses on this) allegedly taken by 2 or 3 different people on 2 of 3 different days

Last Photo by the pool - genuine photo by Kate McCann, probably taken 29 April and not on 3 May as claimed, only released on 24 May

Make-Up Photo - very possibly taken on Sunday 29 April

Pyjamas Photo - probably taken by Kate McCann on 3 May and handed to the Luis Forra press/photo agency on or before 5 May. Like the Tennis Balls photo, it was technically 'created' on 5 May by the Luis Forra agency for release to the media (same day as the Tennis Balls Photo was 'created').

None of these were in the two computer disks handed in to the Portuguese police

On the police website, Madeleine's height was given as 90 cm, so, small for her age. M&S size chart says 90 cm will fit a 2to 3 yo.

according to Kate, amalie's PJs were bought in 2006, these PJs would fit Madeleine perfect and swamp Amalie in 2007.

BODY MEASUREMENTS - these measurement are body size not garment size. Please measure your child to determine which age group they sit with and then buy the clothes size accordingly. For example if your child is 90 CM in height they will sit in the 2-3 yrs category

 
ms.

crusader wrote:On the police website, Madeleine's height was given as 90 cm, so, small for her age. M&S size chart says 90 cm will fit a 2 to 3 yo.

According to Kate, Amelie's PJs were bought in 2006, these PJs would fit Madeleine perfectly and swamp Amelie in 2007.

BODY MEASUREMENTS - these measurement are body size not garment size. Please measure your child to determine which age group they sit with and then buy the clothes size accordingly. For example if your child is 90 CM in height they will sit in the 2-3 yrs category.

Another good point @crusader


In early 2006, Amelie (born February 2005) would have been barely one year old, probably only just learning to stand up and take her first steps

Amelie swamped


Amelie swamped again


Sean swamped

Kids don't grow to order - neither do parents dress to order.


Madeleine McCann: Ocean Club play area - April/May 2007

@Tony Bennett wrote:On 8 and 9 May Gerry McCann, Alex Woolfall and Michael Wright handed in two separate computer disks to the Portuguese police which they said were all of the relevant photos that they had from that holiday.

Factually incorrect - we've been through this before.

Gerry McCann and Michael Wright handed over CDs of photographs taken on the McCanns camera/s to the PJ.  There is no evidence to suggest Alex Woolfall was complicit in this exercise.

It was however alleged that Alex Woolfall went through photographs with Kate McCann to upload on a computer - if I remember rightly he/they were looking to locate an image of Madeleine most suitable for public awareness - in short, the search.

I will confirm later.

Only a press report but I don't believe there is any more believable evidence to support the assertion..

Timesonline - 6th October 2007

He met the couple for the first time at their new apartment. “They were behaving exactly as I thought someone in that situation would be,” Mr Woolfall said. “They had not slept. They were trying to work out what to do that might help generate images of her. They were desperately keen to publicise her face.”

The McCanns had photographs of Madeleine on their digital camera, which Mr Woolfall began transferring to a laptop computer. “I said to Kate, ‘Let’s try to identify pictures where her face is visible’. Downloading the images was a very difficult process for them. It was upsetting.

“They were trying to do two things at once: one, emotionally deal with what was actually, really happening to them; two, operate in some sort of logical way to help get her back.”

Mr Woolfall transmitted the photographs to the Press Association in London, from where they were distributed to the media. The portfolio included the now famous image of Madeleine wearing a hat on a tennis court.

@Tony Bennett wrote:Thank you @Verdi for publishing these photos altogether on one page.

I should just add this for clarification:

The Luis Forra/'P J Release' photo, with the bright blue background, was published in the Daily Telegraph.

The same pyjamas but with a grey-black background ('Press Agency archive) was published in the Daily Mail.

Both on 10 May.

Firstly, you've snipped the focal point.  Secondly, what relevance has the particular pyjama image background colour published by newspapers on a specific date?

@Tony Bennett wrote:
Pyjamas Photo - probably taken by Kate McCann on 3 May

Where is the evidence to support this probability?

Verdi wrote:

@Tony Bennett wrote:
Pyjamas Photo - probably taken by Kate McCann on 3 May

Where is the evidence to support this probability?

1.  The McCanns have publicly owned these pyjamas, at the press conferences on 5, 6 & 7 June 2007.

2.  The McCanns insist they were Amelie's. Dr Martin Roberts suggests they were Madeleine's. 

3.  We know from a number of lines of evidence that it was Kate McCann who had the Canon Powershot camera.

4.  We also know that Kate took all or most of those photos that we have from the holiday.

5.  We also have a statement by Kate McCann herself that she washed Madeleine's (not Amelie's) pyjamas.

6.  Finally, we have this significant statement from Dr Martin Roberts - bearing in mind that the Luis Forra agency is also in Lagos:

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.

UNQUOTE

---------------

Can you please identify the name(s) of any individual(s) who are MORE likely to have taken that photo of the pyjamas than Kate McCann?

Tony, with all due respect, none of that is evidence.

I don't care what Doctor Martin Roberts thinks either as that is certainly not evidence, just (bad in my opinion) opinion.

It's also still "so what" for me.

I don't get the emotional investment in this nothing story.

Put in simple terms, the Picture below appeared in the Algarve Resident on May 8th 2007, before the PJ Released their photograph and before the pyjamas were acquired from M & S.  There is no button detail, so clearly these are not Amelie' Pyjamas - so where did these PJs come from? Where did the photograph come from?

sharonl wrote:Put in simple terms, the Picture below appeared in the Algarve Resident on May 8th 2007, before the PJ Released their photograph and before the pyjamas were acquired from M & S.  There is no button detail, so clearly these are not Amelie' Pyjamas - so where did these PJs come from? Where did the photograph come from?

I already posted the link to the Algarve Resident page where THEY SAY M&S sent them the picture.

https://www.portugalresident.com/madeleines-pyjamas/

Marks & Spencer in the UK kindly sent us a photograph of the same pyjamas Madeleine McCann was wearing on the night of her disappearance.

This is an absolute mental thread.

So Madeleine disappeared on May 3rd and with in 4 days, The Algarve Resident:

Established exactly what she wearing
Found out her size
and where and when they were purchased
Got in touch with M & S who in turn, received the correspondence, passed it the correct department, rapidly located the correct item purely on description, and sent a picture to the Algarve Resident who must have received it on May 7th to have printed it in the May 8th press.

  Quick work - shame they didn't get it to the PJ just as quickly.

and there is a weekend in there too.

I can understand a speedy response to the PJ, but too a news paper?  Did Clarence or that notorious crook who calls himself a journalist at the Olive Press, have anything to do with this?

Furthermore, is there any real evidence that M & S did actually send that early photograph to The Resident?  Has M & S actually confirmed this?

@Tony Bennett wrote:6.  Finally, we have this significant statement from Dr Martin Roberts - bearing in mind that the Luis Forra agency is also in Lagos:

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).

Only of interest in so far as the black and white image of the pyjama photograph accredited to Luis Fora of the Portuguese press agency based in Lisbon, is the only image on that page marked with the PJ stamp.  This indicates to me a chain of custody for this particular photograph.



The marina photographs do not.  Whether the marina images were taken by Kate McCann or the psychic she was with is unknown.  The Leicestershire police officer, DC Markley says in his witness statement that the photographs were handed to him by Kate McCann.  The mechanics of that statement I'm at a loss to understand as Kate McCann was not in Leicester and I don't think DC Markley was in Portugal.  Unless of course, Kate McCann or a source close thereto, had access to a computer   - according to documented information, she didn't.

08-02-outros apenso_VIII volume_II_ Pages _331-342

02volume_II_apenso_VIII_Page_331

LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY Continuation WITNESS STATEMENT

INFORMATION FROM THE FAMILY

I spoke to Kate McCann on Tuesday 8th of May 07. She told me that a friend of her Aunt & Uncle from Leicester had a friend that had a strong vision that Madeleine was on a boat with a man in the Marina in Logos.

This person arrived in Portugal and has spoke to Kate. They have visited the Marina and identified the boat as "SHEARWATER" They saw a man on the boat. but it was not the same man that she had in her vision.

This is very important to Kate. I spoke to Glen Pounder if he could make some enqs with regards to the boat.

He has done this and the boat is registered to a Canadian National called Bruce Cook. Glen has told me that George Reyes at the police Stn  is now dealing with the matter with record to doing dvc checks etc.

I spoke to Kate today and she has given me photographs of the boat. She has also given me photographs of a man who has been on the boat. This is not the man the woman had in her vision.

This matter is very important to her and she is very pleased that we are making enq's into the matter. Once the enq's have been completed can we please let her know the results.

Thanks  



As can be seen, no mention by DC Markley of the pyjama image, only the marina.  Which begs the question, what is that isolated image doing on a document relating to a psychics vision and subsequent photographs passed to Leicestershire police? A reasonable assumption would be that the pyjama image was included in the documentation by mistake.  

Aside from that, why would Kate McCann elect to pass photographs of potential interest to the investigation, to Leicestershire police and not the PJ?

Luis Forra was/is a journalistic photographer according to his facebook profile.  If you check out press agency archives, you will see quite a number of photographs relating to the case of missing Madeleine McCann are accredited to him.  I don't believe there is any valid reason to doubt his integrity.

In short, Luis Forra is more than likely the provenance of the photograph of Amelie McCann's pyjamas, the subject under discussion and can be seen in the EPA archives as posted up-page.

one of the great features of the internet is that if something is disagreeable you can scroll on

@Tony Bennett wrote:@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.

Verdi wrote:Yes, I believe it was.  

The problems they encountered preventing the continuity of a routine police investigation, was being stymied by outside interference - primarily emanating from the UK.

I'm reminded of Gonçalo Amaral's words..

If a mistake was made, it was in taking so long to make the couple arguidos. Too much politics, that’s what there was, too much politics and not enough policing.

I’d say rather that the mistake was in treating the McCanns “with tweezers.” From the start of the investigation, we realised that certain things did not add up and yet, they continued to benefit from favourable treatment; that’s what’s not normal!
~~~

If memory serves me well, it was about the 4th May 2007 the PJ started to realise the inconsistencies in the witness statements.  I truly believe, if the PJ were left alone to do their job without impediment, we wouldn't be here today discussing the complete mystery of Madeleine McCann.

NOTE:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14767p200-documented-evidence#412885

sharonl wrote:So Madeleine disappeared on May 3rd and with in 4 days, The Algarve Resident:

Established exactly what she wearing
Found out her size
and where and when they were purchased
Got in touch with M & S who in turn, received the correspondence, passed it the correct department, rapidly located the correct item purely on description, and sent a picture to the Algarve Resident who must have received it on May 7th to have printed it in the May 8th press.

  Quick work - shame they didn't get it to the PJ just as quickly.

Furthermore, is there any real evidence that M & S did actually send that early photograph to The Resident?  Has M & S actually confirmed this?

For goodness sake.

The Algarve Resident is in on it now!

There was a statement with a description saying they bought the pyjamas from M&S.

Then... at least BBC and Algarve Resident contacted M&S to see if they had actual pictures. I'm sure other intrepid reporters did the same.

M&S obliged - this was the top story in the news for days and they would have tried to be helpful.

What part of this is so hard to understand?

BlueBag wrote:

sharonl wrote:So Madeleine disappeared on May 3rd and with in 4 days.

The Algarve Resident:

- Established exactly what she wearing
- Found out her size
- And where and when they were purchased
- Got in touch with M & S who in turn, received the correspondence, passed it the correct department, rapidly located the correct item purely on description, and sent a picture to the Algarve Resident who must have received it on May 7th to have printed it in the May 8th press.

  Quick work - shame they didn't get it to the PJ just as quickly.

Furthermore, is there any real evidence that M & S did actually send that early photograph to The Resident?  Has M & S actually confirmed this?

For goodness sake.

The Algarve Resident is in on it now!

There was a statement with a description saying they bought the pyjamas from M&S.

Then... at least BBC and Algarve Resident contacted M&S to see if they had actual pictures. I'm sure other intrepid reporters did the same.

M&S obliged - this was the top story in the news for days and they would have tried to be helpful.

What part of this is so hard to understand?

Let us wrap up this issue of the photo of Madeleine that appeared in the Algarve Resident and on the BBC.

@sharonl has raised a query and @BlueBag has provided the correct answer.

If I may elaborate, Dr Martin Roberts actually explained this perfectly in his article 'A Nightwear Job', thus:

QUOTE

On 7 May, the Sun reported that:


"The McCann family also disclosed that on the night of her disappearance Madeleine was wearing white pyjama bottoms with a small floral design and a short-sleeved pink top with a picture of Eeyore with the word Eeyore written in capital letters. The clothes were bought at Marks and Spencer last year."


In his 7 June covering letter to the Forensic Laboratory in Lisbon, Goncalo Amaral conveys the following specification in relation to the pyjamas he was intent on sending for examination:


"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" 


UNQUOTE


-----------------------


So that nails where the photos used by the Algarve Resident and the BBC came from. Likewise, we know that the PJ later (sometime before 7 June) obtained from Marks and Spencers an actual set of pyjamas, which were 'camisole type without buttons, size 2-3 years - 97cm'.


BUT we are not really interested in those pyjamas, we are interested in as much information as we can deduce about the Luis Forra-agency photograph. That remains a live subject for discussion on this thread, as far as I am concerned, despite the insistence of @Verdi & @BlueBag that Luis Forra took photo(s) of AMELIE's (not Madeleine's) pyjamas, just as the McCanns claim, and that there is therefore nothing more to discuss.  

Verdi wrote:

@Tony Bennett wrote:6.  Finally, we have this significant statement from Dr Martin Roberts - bearing in mind that the Luis Forra agency is also in Lagos:

REST SNIPPED

In short, Luis Forra is more than likely the provenance of the photograph of Amelie McCann's pyjamas, the subject under discussion and can be seen in the EPA archives as posted up-page.

(REST SNIPPED)

Thank you @Verdi for bringing us the material from the PJ files here. It is useful.

You wrote: "Luis Forra is more than likely the provenance of the photograph of Amelie McCann's pyjamas..."

I agree, BUT this is a very vague statement which does not address many of the questions I have been asking about this image. For example, we know that the Luis Forra image was 'created' on Saturday 5 May. But we don't know HOW it was created (see my questions). 

I think it is reasonable to assume, from the information you kindly posted, that Kate McCann probably handed the Luis Forra image to the PJ when she spoke in person to D C Markley on 8 May and handed him images of a boat and a bloke, CLAIMED to have been taken on the instructions of an alleged psychic who was allegedly a close friend of Kate's uncle Brian Kennedy in Rothley (I am personally wondering how likely THAT story is!).

Below are four of the questions I posed upthread. I am still looking for the answers:
      
3. Was the original Luis Forra photograph of the pyjamas taken by him or one of his staff - or by an amateur photographer?

4. We know (see upthread) that the Luis Forra agency pyjamas photo was 'created' on Saturday 5 May 2007 (the same day I believe that the Tennis Balls Photo was 'created'). Did Luis Forra, or one of his employees, have these pyjamas in front of him and take this photograph? OR, was a photographing a photograph?

5. If the Luis Forra agency had the pyjamas in front of them on Saturday 5 May, (a) who took them there? - and (b) who took the photo?

6. Thinking of all the photos of that very pair of pyjamas (the ones with the wisps of cotton on the leg and jacket), if these belonged to Amelie, why did the McCanns and Luis Forra not tell the police and the media who published the photos: "Look, these are Amelie's pyjamas. They're exactly the same as Madeleine's?"