Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'

by Guest 27.01.20 1:08

The entire charade is nothing but an elaborate PR exercise.

LOQK .... Madeleine McCann was abducted, she was wearing pyjamas just like these. Dial 999 if you see anything suspicious - it certainly worked in that direction, only they didn't dial 999, they called McCann Private Detective Agency Inc !

Aside from the official police investigation, what Madeleine was wearing when she was abducted has no bearing on anything other than public awareness. Unlikely in the extreme that Madeleine was carried through the streets of Luz, or bundled onto a waiting boat, or driven across boarders, or flown from Portugal to some unknown destination - pyjamas are not the clue nor the answer.

Somehow, I think the McCanns knew that when embarking on the European magical mystery tour.

The photograph of the pyjamas accredited to the photographer Luis Forra, was in the possession of the PJ early May 2007 and used by the PJ for their missing persons bulletin.

If there was so much as a hint that the photographed pyjamas belonged to Madeleine McCann, or they were wet, or they were photographed on the apartment 5a sofa by anyone other than an official source, they would have been seized by the PJ as pivotal evidence and subjected to forensic examination.

Get a grip!

by **Jill Havern** 27.01.20 18:22

Amelie’s or Madeleine’s pyjamas? - In the Media Photos of 10 May 2007
by MMRG. 27 January 2020

In the ongoing debate about the pyjamas in the image below, we think insufficient attention has been given to what the McCanns initially said about these pyjamas.

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

Recapping: the McCanns told a press conference on 7 June 2007 that these were Amelie’s pyjamas. They therefore took ownership of these pyjamas, leaving us only with the question, were the McCanns (a) telling the truth – they were Amelie’s, or (b) not telling the truth, in which case they must be Madeleine.

Again recapping: the McCanns say they took two pairs of Madeleine’s pyjamas on their one-week holiday. If so, presumably they also did for Sean and Amelie, although they appear never to have said that.

Furthermore, the McCanns ask us to believe the rather unlikely scenario that Madeleine’s pyjamas were identical to Amelie’s, though a larger size and apparently without buttons.

All the above are accepted without qualification by those on this thread who insist that the McCanns are telling the truth by saying that these pjyjamas are Amelie’s.

But now let us look back briefly on the event of that week.

Both the McCanns were interviewed on Friday 4 May, hours after they had reported her missing.

Gerry McCann is reported as making the following statement to the Portuguese Police:

“It is emphasised that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas. Jane will be able to clarify this situation.
With regard to Madeleine, he describes her as being of Caucasian race, with quite white skin, four years old (12-05-2003), almost 90 cm( 2ft 11 in) in height...

At the time of her disappearance she was wearing pyjamas, the trousers were white with a floral pattern, and the short-sleeved top was predominantly pink and there was a blue and grey figure of a donkey on the front, with the inscription "Eeyore".

Kate McCann’s statement is near-identical:

Later, a member of the group, Russell's partner Jane, when she went to her apartment to see her children at around 9.15pm, saw from the rear, about 50 metres away, on the perimeter road of the club, a long-haired person, in what she thinks were jeans, with a child in his arms and walking very quickly. But she is better able to tell you about that herself.

Concerning Madeleine, she is Caucasian, white, aged four years (12/05/2003) about 90cm tall…At the time of her disappearance, she was wearing pyjamas with white bottoms with a floral pattern. The short-sleeved top [was] mainly pink with a blue-grey figure of a donkey bearing the inscription, "EEYORE", an inscription which is also on one of the trouser legs. The pyjamas are "Marks and Spencer" brand.

Now. the Luis Forra photo agency photo, which is the image below (and which was released via the Press Agency), did not reach the media until a week after Madeleine was reported missing.

So this must be the question: Why, knowing that Madeleine had been abducted in Eeyore pyjamas exactly the same as those that Madeleine was wearing, did the McCanns either (a) not bring Amelie’s’ pyjamas with them? - or (b) at least tell the Portuguese Police that they had an identical pair (apart from size)?

Instead, they appear to have chosen what looks like a devious route via the Luis Forra Agency.

If we take the McCanns at their word, as do some on this thread, they ended up with getting hold of a Luis Forra agency photo of Amelie’s pyjamas – the evidence suggests this phot was ‘created’ on Saturday 5 May - and then leaving it to the agency to provide this photo to the Portuguese Police on Tuesday 8 May, for the Portuguese Police then to approve its release to the media?

When they could have showed identical pyjamas to the Portuguese Police on Friday 4 May?
Notice also from the Daily Mail press release below that no mention is made of the photo being of Amelie’s pyjamas. As far as we know this piece of ‘information’ only came out at the time of the two press conferences in June. The press article also state that the pyjamas were ‘identical’ to those worn by Madeleine.

Finally, reconsidering the image produced by the Luis Forra agency, these appear to be the main possibilities:
(a) photo taken by the McCanns (or someone else), someone took it to the Luis Forra agency and the Luis Forra agency photographed the photograph
(b) digital photo taken by the McCanns (or someone else), and sent by email to the Luis Forra agency or the SD card was handed personally to them, or
(c) original photo taken by the Luis Forra agency, either at the agency or elsewhere, in which case the McCanns, or someone else on their behalf, must have arranged for the Lois Forra agency to have been shown the actual pyjamas.

Again, why on earth take any of these routes, without simply handing Amelie’s pyjamas to the police.

Also, why do we not read anywhere, not even in Kate McCann’s book ‘madeleine’, about how and when this photo was taken, when it was taken to (or sent to) the Luis Forra agency, and why did the McCanns apparently not tell the Portuguese Police what they were doing - and whose pyjamas they were? We still don’t know who actually took this all-important photo.

MMRG, 27 January 2020

A POLL HAS NOW BEEN OPENED FOR MEMBERS TO GIVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER THESE ARE

AMELIE'S

or MADELEINE'S

PYJAMAS

===================================

BELOW: DAILY MAIL REPORT OF THURSDAY 10 MAY 2007

Search for Madeleine - police release pyjamas she was wearing
Last updated at 22:00 10 May 2007

Portuguese police have issued an image of a pair of pyjamas identical to those which missing three-year-old Madeleine McCann had been wearing when she disappeared.

Notices around Praia da Luz had previously conflicting accounts of what she was wearing.

Madeleine was abducted in a holiday resort a week ago.

Some volunteer search teams had been operating under the assumption that Madeleine was wearing white pyjamas, when they were in fact a pink t-shirt with the character Eeyore and white trousers with a small floral pattern.

Correio Da Manha said the CCTV footage from the petrol garage included a car with a British number plate and claimed the number had already been circulated through Interpol.

The newspaper said one theory was that Madeleine had been kidnapped by one of the men with the complicity of a couple.

Meanwhile, newspaper 24 Horas also spoke of a report of a blonde woman seen near Madeleine's bedroom on the night of her abduction.

It was confirmed today that a Portuguese man in the town of Sagres, near Praia da Luz, had reported a foreign man trying to take a photograph of his daughter.

The man challenged the stranger who made off in a car which, it was reported, he then photographed with his mobile phone.

The incident is understood to have happened before Madeleine's disappearance and was reported to police on Monday. The Policia Judiciaria (PJ) has not commented on the reports.

Madeleine has been missing for a week.

She was snatched as she slept in her parents holiday apartment in the village while the couple were dining nearby.

ENDS

by Guest 28.01.20 8:19

Jill Havern wrote:
Furthermore, the McCanns ask us to believe the rather unlikely scenario that Madeleine’s pyjamas were identical to Amelie’s, though a larger size and apparently without buttons.

So not identical.

Not unlikely either in my opinion - big shop and my Mum used to buy us (3 boys) the same or similar clothes.

And!!!... after having described the button detail to the press, M&S produce the actual style of pyjamas that was mentioned.

by **crusader** 28.01.20 11:47

How do we even know the pyjamas held up by the Mccann's belonged to Amalie?

It could all be a part of the plan to plant images in people's minds.

by **crusader** 28.01.20 12:16

What I meant to say was, how do we know the pyjamas held up by the mccann's even belong to any of the Mccann children. They could have borrowed them from the O'Brien's.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.01.20 12:51

crusader wrote:What I meant to say was, how do we know the pyjamas held up by the mccann's even belong to any of the Mccann children. They could have borrowed them from the O'Brien's.

Because little Amelie, when she saw these very pyjamas, exclaimed:

"Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"

Now, some on this thread have rather scoffed at taking this reported comment seriously.

It was Gerry McCann's 'motor-mouth' brother, John McCann, who reported these comments to a newspaper.

There was absolutely no need for John McCann to invent this comment. Indeed, why on earth would he? - because in making this comment, he has in effect dropped the McCanns right in it.

Why would the newspaper misreport this comment? Again, there was no reason why they should do so.

Some take the lofty position of ignoring anything published by any newspaper, especially in this case.

But - really - do we have any valid reason for rejecting Amelie's reported response to seeing her sister Madeleine's pyjamas?

Like any 2-year-old, she knew EXACTLY which were her pyjamas and which were Maddie's.

The idea that Amelie and Madeleine had exactly the same style of pyjamas is most unlikely.

There are many other reasons for thinking (a) that these were Madeleine's pyjamas and (b) that the McCanns took a digital photo of them which was somehow passed to the Luis Forra agency.

But Amelie's snap reaction is most certainly another reason.

by **crusader** 28.01.20 13:29

I hear you Tony, is there proof that the pyjamas Amelie referred to were the ones the McCanns held up?

Amelie, according to her Grandma, also wore Madeleine's sandals.

by Guest 28.01.20 13:57

Could someone please explain to me why this makes any difference to anything.

I don't care whose pyjamas they were. From everything I've read I don't see anything untoward.

As for the second-hand quote from one of the children, so what?

Who knows what goes through the mind of a 2 year old child who has seen her (or someone's) pyjamas being held up and heard people talking about "looks like Madeleines pyjamas".

I don't get it.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.01.20 14:01

crusader wrote:Tony, is there proof that the pyjamas Amelie referred to were the ones the McCanns held up?

There is a lot of evidence.

But, proof? Not yet

by **Jill Havern** 28.01.20 19:35

Tony Bennett wrote:Like any 2-year-old, she knew EXACTLY which were her pyjamas and which were Maddie's.

I agree with that.

If they were Amelie's jammies she would have said "My jammies!"

by Guest 28.01.20 20:30

Jill Havern wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Like any 2-year-old, she knew EXACTLY which were her pyjamas and which were Maddie's.
I agree with that.

If they were Amelie's jammies she would have said "My jammies!"

I disagree - she's a two year old.

But there we go.

It's getting us nowhere.

by Guest 28.01.20 21:36

Tony Bennett wrote:
crusader wrote:Tony, is there proof that the pyjamas Amelie referred to were the ones the McCanns held up?

There is a lot of evidence.

But, proof? Not yet

No - there is not any evidence so the prospect of proving anything is remote in the extreme.

You can't keep quoting isolated sentences to continue this line of fiction, it takes everything out of context.

So, again if you wish to believe in a newspaper report..

As the family waited fearfully for news, they faced the agonising reality of trying to explain to their toddler twins why their big sister was no longer there.

"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."

Press report dated 15th May 2007 - that's twelve days after Madeleine was reported missing.

'Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas'

Think about it ....

by Guest 28.01.20 22:13

Putting store by a newspaper second-hand quote from a 2-year old for no discernible purpose is a bit weird.

Sorry... I have deep respect for many people who are doing it... but come on!

What does it prove?

by Guest 30.01.20 0:59

I kept picturing her in her short-sleeved Marks and Spencer Eeyore pyjamas and feeling how chilled she would be. Bizarrely, I found myself thinking it would have been better if she’d been wearing her long-sleeved Barbie ones.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

Maybe it was the long sleeved Barbie jammies Amelie allegedly spoke of through the medium of John McCann and a media source.

I'd be interested to learn who John McCann spoke to when this quote was said to have been said. It's reasonable to assume he was in Portugal, considering the date of the report, so who managed to get him to one side and ask questions that would lead to his alleged comment?

Jon Clarke of the Olive Press perhaps big grin

? He apparently makes it up as he goes along interview

.

by **PeterMac** 30.01.20 7:42

It MUST have been Jon Clarke.
He was the ONLY REPORTER there ! ! !

by **Tony Bennett** 30.01.20 15:00

Verdi wrote:
I kept picturing her in her short-sleeved Marks and Spencer Eeyore pyjamas and feeling how chilled she would be. Bizarrely, I found myself thinking it would have been better if she’d been wearing her long-sleeved Barbie ones.

'madeleine' by KATE MCCANN

Maybe it was the long sleeved Barbie jammies Amelie allegedly spoke of through the medium of John McCann and a media source.

Thank you [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for adding this quote from page 73 of 'madeleine'.

Perhaps, for context, we should also have details of the actual occasion when Kate allegedly 'pictured' Madeleine in "her short-sleeved Marks and Spencer Eeyore pyjamas..."

Here is a fuller extract, beginning on page 72:

"Then they all jumped up from their chairs and ran towards me. I remember Gerry saying, 'She must be there!' By now, I was hysterical. 'She's not! She's gone!'. Everybody sprinted back to our apartment...I remember feeling frustrate when David said: 'Let's just check the apartment'. I'd done that and I knew, I knew, that Madeleine had been abducted. I ran out into the car park, flying from end to end, yelling desperately, 'Madeleine! Madeleine!' It was so cold and windy. I kept picturing her in her short-sleeved Marks and Spencer Eeyore pyjamas and feeling how chilled she would be. Bizarrely, I found myself thinking it would have been better if she’d been wearing her long-sleeved Barbie ones".

Now, what I am finding very strange is the almost blind willingness by some on this thread to regard the accounts of Kate McCann on the pyjamas as the unvarnished, 'Gospel truth'.

"They were Amelie's pyjamas": I believe her!

"Amelie and Madeleine had identical Eeyore pyjamas": I believe her!

"I had to wash out a tea stain on Madeleine's pjyamas": I believe this!

"Madeleine had a pair of long-sleeved Barbie pyjamas": I believe her!

Yet when it comes to a factual report by a reporter who merely records a few words of John McCann's - when neither he nor the reporter had any reason to make things up -, the reaction is totally different: "Don't believe a word you read in the papers!"

Very strange. Indeed.

I hope we haven't all forgotten these words from Inspector Tavares de Almeida's Interim Report of 10 September 2007:

QUOTE

The information that was initially collected from family and friends was uncertain. In addition, the McCanns and their friends worked on their account of events in order to strengthen and defend their version of what had happened Madeleine.

The media attention that has been given to the case and the search for information by the said media has led to an evolution in Madeleine’s parents’ statements. All the information that has been made public has contributed to the McCanns rebuilding and adapting their story to fit the eventual police questions. They have attempted to explain the forensic evidence that we have collected and are collecting.

The group’s initial informal statements given during the initial stages of the investigation immediately introduced the abduction hypothesis. But even simple things were the subject of misinformation.

A simulation - a staged hoax - of an abduction took place

All the information that has been made public has contributed to the McCanns rebuilding and adapting their story to fit the eventual police questions.

UNQUOTE

ETA: There is a poll on this thread: Were the pyjamas held up by the McCanns at their press conferences Amelie's, or Madeleine's?

by Guest 30.01.20 15:57

Yet when it comes to a factual report by a reporter who merely records a few words of John McCann's - when neither he nor the reporter had any reason to make things up -, the reaction is totally different: "Don't believe a word you read in the papers!"

Sorry Tony... "factual"?

How do you know?

You of all people should know about journalists.

And... a journalist quoting John McCann quoting a 2-year old (actual full context unknown).

I really don't care who said what because this whole pyjama thing drummed up by Dr Roberts is a nothing-burger - much like reflections in sunglasses and photo-shopped pool pictures.

I prefer the real stuff.. like dogs and the like.

by **crusader** 30.01.20 17:04

The photo created by Lois Forra, of Amalie's PJs, have short or knee length legs. The photo in the PJ files, said to be identical to the ones Madeleine was wearing, have ankle length legs.

In Jane Tanner's statement she said she saw the child's bare feet. When she gave a description of the man carrying the child, she described the PJ bottoms as predominantly white with a pattern and some kind of a frill around the bottom of the legs.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.01.20 20:07

BlueBag wrote:
Yet when it comes to a factual report by a reporter who merely records a few words of John McCann's - when neither he nor the reporter had any reason to make things up -, the reaction is totally different: "Don't believe a word you read in the papers!"
Sorry Tony... "factual"?

How do you know?

Maybe I should have said "when it comes to a straightforward account". To that extent, you have made a fair point.

But, with great respect, have you not just made, for me, the very point I was trying to make?

Here we have a straightforward account. We have no reason whatsoever to doubt the accuracy of this account. John McCann said it. The reporter reported it. Neither had any reason to distort this very brief conversation. Yet you say, in effect: "Ignore it!"

But by contrast, when Kate says "These are Amelie's pyjamas", "I washed out a tea stain", "Madeleine and Amelie had identical pyjamas", and so forth, you rush to declare: "No reason whatsoever to disbelieve her!"

by Guest 30.01.20 20:26

The pyjama episode has scrambled my brain. I do not understand why Kate McCann needed to describe them in such detail - the make, design, sleeve length,and that she wished Madeleine had worn the long sleeved Barbie pair instead. Why account for two pairs of pj's?

by Guest 30.01.20 21:13

Tony Bennett wrote:Now, what I am finding very strange is the almost blind willingness by some on this thread to regard the accounts of Kate McCann on the pyjamas as the unvarnished, 'Gospel truth'.

As I said up-thread Tony, it's not a question of whether Kate McCann is to be believed or not. The available evidence and/or information stacks up with her claim along with that of her husband. It's that simple.

As regards press reports, it's really cherry picking to suit a particular theory isn't it.

I prefer to view everything with caution until such times it is verified by an independent, more authoritative source.

by Guest 30.01.20 21:31

CaKeLoveR wrote:The pyjama episode has scrambled my brain. I do not understand why Kate McCann needed to describe them in such detail - the make, design, sleeve length,and that she wished Madeleine had worn the long sleeved Barbie pair instead. Why account for two pairs of pj's?

Let's take that up a level .... why the European/North African tour?

Well, as far as I can see, it served no purpose whatsoever other than an elaborate public relations exercise - primarily to cement the 'abduction' scenario into the minds of all. Orchestrated and managed by the British government's Media Monitoring Unit's director .... enter Clarence Mitchell!

That aside, the two pairs of pyjamas feature separately. I only highlighted the Barbie pair because, if one is to believe the press report quoting John McCann (which I don't), then he could have been referring to another pair of jammies i.e. the pair mentioned by Kate McCann in her book.

Net result of this conflab - Madeleine McCann was not abducted as concluded by the PJ within hours/days. Pyjamas are a red herring.

Keep your eye on the ball!

by **Tony Bennett** 30.01.20 21:53

CaKeLoveR wrote:The pyjama episode has scrambled my brain. I do not understand why Kate McCann needed to describe them in such detail - the make, design, sleeve length, and that she wished Madeleine had worn the long sleeved Barbie pair instead. Why account for two pairs of pj's?

Excellent point.

Isn't it the same with the tennis balls photo? From page 57 of 'madeleine':

"...my heart soared with pride in Madeleine that morning [Tuesday]. She was so happy and obviously enjoying herself. Standing there listening intently to Cat's instructions, she looked so gorgeous in her little T-shirt and shorts, pink hat, ankle socks and new holiday sandal that I ran back to our apartment for my camera to record the occasion".

This is meant to confirm in our minds that the Tennis Balls Photo is a genuine photo.

But perhaps giving us so much detail tells us precisely the opposite?

Other examples might be the excessive detail given us about the door angles - 60 degrees open here, 45 degrees there and so on.

And the 'gust of wind', the wide open window, the shutters raised right up, the curtains 'flying up', 'whoooosh!', the door suddenly slamming shut.

Far too much detail

by **PeterMac** 31.01.20 8:36

Was the long sleeved Barbie pair in Pdl ?
Had they packed 2 pairs for each child, for a 7 night holiday in a place they fondly assumed would be warm
6 pairs of PJs ? Plus their own,
No sorry.
People do not take that much 'clobber' with them for a short break, when they know know there is a washing machine and drying rack for underwear and other things, and a supermarket for night time nappies.

by Guest 31.01.20 8:47

PeterMac wrote:Was the long sleeved Barbie pair in Pdl ?
Had they packed 2 pairs for each child, for a 7 night holiday in a place they fondly assumed would be warm
6 pairs of PJs ? Plus their own,

Children/toddlers... 2 pairs yes without a doubt.

As a parent I think it would be stupid not to (thankfully that phase is 25 years past).

"Assumed to be warm".

You've assumed they assumed it would be warm.

It was in fact cold (as you know) so maybe they looked at the forecast.

I'm with Verdi... I don't believe/disbelieve Kate... I've just not seen anything that is worth anything...

by Guest 31.01.20 17:58

Don't most people have their cameras (or camera 'phones) with them all the time, on holiday? Who on earth has to 'dash back' to fetch a camera to record a moment which will be over and done with when the camera is brought to the scene. Another stupid McCann statement.

by **Tony Bennett** 31.01.20 20:22

CaKeLoveR wrote:Don't most people have their cameras (or camera 'phones) with them all the time, on holiday? Who on earth has to 'dash back' to fetch a camera to record a moment which will be over and done with when the camera is brought to the scene. Another stupid McCann statement.

Almost everything about both (a) the 'Tennis Balls Photo' and (b) the pyjams sagas looks like contrived, back-fitting statements - just as Inspector Tavares de Almeida said many times over in his September 2007 Intercalary Report.

To say nothing of the locked/unlocked patio doors, the shutters, the 'high tea', the sailing expedition, the creche records and so much else

by Guest 31.01.20 21:41

If you take away all of these idiotic word pictures, there's nothing, is there? The over emphasis regarding everything Madeleine said, did and wore, and how they marvelled at how lovely she was, was perhaps to convince people that they were caring, devoted parents. It failed spectacularly.

by Guest 31.01.20 23:39

by Guest 11.03.20 8:57

I have read this thread from page 1, which hasn't helped at all.

These two more know more about their children's nightwear than they do about the children. This makes me wonder if Madeleine was not wearing pyjamas during her final moments. Thus, should the poor little girl's body be discovered, her parents could say "Well, she was in her night togs when we put her to bed". Her mother had already pre-empted the possibility of Madeleine having been molested.