Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'

The claimed routine was bath, pyjamas, milk and biscuits, story, bed and then off to the Tapas.

If Madeleine was not in her pyjamas, then clearly this was not the sequence of events prior to her disappearance and that means that the timing of her reported disappearance is also wrong.  What she was really wearing would be very telling.  

I wish I could get a grip on what is bothering me about all of that. As with a lot of what they said, these details are unnecessary, and over emphasised. Could it be that bedtime was a disorganised mess, even if only on this holiday, and they don't know who was wearing what?

CaKeLoveR wrote:I wish I could get a grip on what is bothering me about all of that. As with a lot of what they said, these details are unnecessary, and over emphasised. Could it be that bedtime was a disorganised mess, even if only on this holiday, and they don't know who was wearing what?

Remember what they were doing, they were staging an abduction on May 3rd and therefore had to describe the events of the evening running up to the time of the alleged abduction. These events included dressing the kids and putting them to bed.

The chances are that none of this actually took place, instead of reading a story, they were concocting one.

Yes, that's what I'm thinking just now. They had to stage a night time abduction, and rabbit on about nightwear to fix the time In people's minds. If Madeleine should be found, she will have to be wearing pyjamas rather than day clothes, after all the 'photos of pj's which the McCanns were waving about, otherwise they've dropped themselves in it. I need to stop thinking about it for a few days.

crusader wrote:Was the photo of Madeleine's pyjamas on this file and that is where Louis Forra got it from?

No!

I’ve looked into this before.  Kate said in the interview where she held up Amelie’s pyjamas, that they were the same as Madeleine’s but Maddie’e were larger and didn’t have the button on the back of the neck.  The  pic from the apartment sofa does have the button.  Am I’m missing something here?

SueH wrote:I’ve looked into this before.  Kate said in the interview where she held up Amelie’s pyjamas, that they were the same as Madeleine’s but Maddie’e were larger and didn’t have the button on the back of the neck.  The  pic from the apartment sofa does have the button.  Am I’m missing something here?

No SueH, I don't think you're missing anything - your eye seems to be well and truly focused on the ball.

If you've read through this thread you will realise that I consider Dr Martin Roberts' observations on the pyjamarama saga to be way out!

On the night of 3rd/4th May 2007, team McCann launched a very elaborate public relations exercise, everything they said and did or arranged for someone else to say on their behalf was all for a reason. They were well focused with the help of a bastion of supporters to aid and abet, they wouldn't have made such a crass error as suggested by Dr Martin Roberts' article.

A very hearty to you!

Thank you. I’ve only really had time to research this case properly since the beginning of lockdown. It’s like a game of grand scale Cluedo, if it wasn’t for the fact a young girl has died imo, it would be laughable with all the inconsistencies, deceit, mishaps and cover ups.  
I’m eager for the truth to be exposed and in another way I’m not sure I want to know. 
Thanks for the welcome - I’ll slowly work out how the forum works. X

SueH wrote:I’ve looked into this before.  Kate said in the interview where she held up Amelie’s pyjamas, that they were the same as Madeleine’s but Maddie’e were larger and didn’t have the button on the back of the neck.  The pic from the apartment sofa does have the button.  Am I missing something here?

Yes [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], both of you are missing a great deal.

Point 1 concerns the photograph of Madeleine's pyjamas taken against what appears to be a sofa, or some material, with a blue hessian-style background.  

We know from Kate's book that she admits to having washed Madeleine's pyjamas on the morning of Thursday 3 May.  

She gives an extremely bizarre reason for doing so, to 'wash out a tea stain'. 

There is no reference by the McCanns to Madeleine drinking tea on that holiday. Besides that, at the time she washed the pyjamas, their holiday had only 48 hours to run. You might wash pyjamas if they had become soiled, or were stained with blood. But NOT for a 'tea-stain'!  

Point 2 concerns the photographs of the pyjamas held up by the McCanns for the Crimewatch programme on Tuesday 5 June, and at the Amsterdam press conference on Thursday 7 June. 

As Martin Roberts has conclusively proved, these are the very same pair of pyjamas with the same wisps of cotton on them there for all to see. Therefore these are Madeleine's pyjamas.

Therefore they are not Amelie's pyjamas, as Kate claimed. 

Point 3 concerns the fact that the convoluted claim about the button was NOT mentioned at the Crimewatch demonstration on 5 June but WAS mentioned in connection with the Amsterdam conference two days later. Why was that? Did someone perhaps point out the obvious contradiction?

Point 4 concerns the size of the pyjamas held up by the McCanns. They are obviously too big to have been bought for Amelia before April 2007.

Point 5 concerns the obvious point that parents do not buy identical sets of pyjamas for the children. Otherwise, there would be constant confusion. It also explains why a newspaper reported an innocent remark by Gerry McCann's brother John about an occasion when Amelia got sight of Madeleine's pyjamas and exclaimed "Maddie's jammies. Where is Maddie?"  There was no reason whatsoever for John McCann to make up this comment. On the contrary, it is the natural response of a child who recognises what are obviously Madeleine's pyjamas and not hers, and hasn't seen her sister for several days.

Point 6 Buttons were put on slightly older children's pyjamas, i.e. 3- to 4-year-olds. They were not put on those for younger children aged 1-2. 

Point 7  Kate says she held up Amelie's pyjamas. Just how reliable a witness is she?  

FWIW, of those on here who have read through Martin Roberts' long article and have given a view one way or the other, 84% say they agree with him, with only 16% disagreeing.

For anyone new to the forum, please take time to read the whole of Martin Roberts' article and you will see how he convincingly explains the many mysterious questions about Madeleine's pyjamas.

He begins where we might all begin: asking ourselves why on earth the McCanns would want to wash their daughter's pyjamas, then photograph them as they were drying, then arrange for them to be taken to the Luis Forra agency only to appear in British daily newspapers five days later.





.

With the greatest respect, I'm not missing anything Tony.

I've expressed my rationale on the subject throughout the thread. I have not wavered.

To summarize, Dr Martin Roberts' lengthy article is inaccurate and thus not worthy of attention.

Others no doubt will think differently.

Verdi wrote:With the greatest respect, I'm not missing anything Tony.

I've expressed my rationale on the subject throughout the thread.  I have not wavered.

To summarize, Dr Martin Roberts' lengthy article is inaccurate and thus not worthy of attention.

Others no doubt will think differently.

Not worthy of your own attention, or are you advising everyone else not to pay any attention to it?

With respect you are our moderator, part of the admin team - but not the adjudicator.

I disagree about the buttons - they are indeed on most babies and younger children’s tops and Pyjamas but not on older children’s.  And parents are inclined to dress their little girls in the same outfits. 
I remember thinking when that interview was aired, who on earth would use your toddlers pjs when M&S would have sent them an age 3-4 pair free of charge at the drop of a hat. 
I may well be new to this forum but I have studied the PJ files and numerous other investigative sites in depth. 
MM’s PJs would have been snapped up for DNA at the first instance.  
As you say the top was apparently washed because of the ‘tea’ stain.  I believe when/if they find MM she will still be in those pjs along with a stain that is not tea and linked to her demise.

Tony Bennett wrote:
Point 5 concerns the obvious point that parents do not buy identical sets of pyjamas for the children. Otherwise, there would be constant confusion.

I always used to buy identical clothes for my granddaughters when they were very young...now that they're 9 and 12 they have their own styles so no longer do that.

SueH wrote:I disagree about the buttons - they are indeed on most babies and younger children’s tops and Pyjamas but not on older children’s.  And parents are inclined to dress their little girls in the same outfits. 
I remember thinking when that interview was aired, who on earth would use your toddlers pjs when M&S would have sent them an age 3-4 pair free of charge at the drop of a hat. 
I may well be new to this forum but I have studied the PJ files and numerous other investigative sites in depth. 
MM’s PJs would have been snapped up for DNA at the first instance.  
As you say the top was apparently washed because of the ‘tea’ stain.  I believe when/if they find MM she will still be in those pjs along with a stain that is not tea and linked to her demise.

I am not sure about that Sue. I would say that the pyjamas were washed after she died.

Dr Martin Roberts demonstrates that one pair of pyjamas that were used were far too big for Amelie who told us that they were Maddies. There was also the Pyjamas that were photographed for the Algarve press before the PJ released their photograph. Where did that photograph come from?

One point that Dr Martin Roberts does make is that the following photograph was published in the Algarve Resident on May 8th, 2 days before the optical release.  

Where did the pyjamas come from?

Who took the photograph and sent it to the Algarve Resident?

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

Jill Havern wrote:

Verdi wrote:With the greatest respect, I'm not missing anything Tony.

I've expressed my rationale on the subject throughout the thread.  I have not wavered.

To summarize, Dr Martin Roberts' lengthy article is inaccurate and thus not worthy of attention.

Others no doubt will think differently.

Not worthy of your own attention, or are you advising everyone else not to pay any attention to it?

With respect you are our moderator, part of the admin team - but not the adjudicator.

Not at all, as I said .... 'others no doubt will think differently'. As I also said, I've explained my rationale on the subject throughout this thread. my reasons for thinking the subject analysis is inaccurate so not worthy of particular attention.

It's up to the reader to form their own opinions. I was merely responding to Tony's comment that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] was missing something .

sharonl wrote:One point that Dr Martin Roberts does make is that the following photograph was published in the Algarve Resident on May 8th, 2 days before the optical release.  

Where did the pyjamas come from?

Who took the photograph and sent it to the Algarve Resident?

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

That was covered somewhere on this thread Sharon.

If I remember rightly the pyjamas pictured in the Algarve Resident were from Marks and Spencers. I'll try and find it later.

Verdi wrote:

sharonl wrote:One point that Dr Martin Roberts does make is that the following photograph was published in the Algarve Resident on May 8th, 2 days before the optical release.  

Where did the pyjamas come from?

Who took the photograph and sent it to the Algarve Resident?

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

That was covered somewhere on this thread Sharon.  

If I remember rightly the pyjamas pictured in the Algarve Resident were from Marks and Spencers.  I'll try and find it later.

Weren't the M & S Pyjamas requested by the PJ?  Someone did try to claim that the press had them from M & S but I think that may have been a McCann supporter.  I cannot really see M & S rushing a pair of PJs over to a news outlet in record time.

I don't think there is any evidence that M & S sent these PJs to the press, or a photograph.

Well, there have been 11 posts since my post upthread yesterday where I listed 7 separate points supporting the hypothesis of Dr Martin Roberts. 

Can I invite members to focus closely on these three photos:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Photo of a pair of Eeyore pyjamas against a blue hessian-type background, credited to the Press Agency (PA)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  
Photo of a pair of Eeyore pyjamas against a blue hessian-type background, almost certainly also via the Press Agency (PA)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Photo of a pair of Eeyore pyjamas held up by Gerry McCann at an Amsterdam press call on 7 June 2007 (sorry, I don't have a better photo of this to hand)

I would like first of all to ask:

QUESTION 1   Is it agreed that these are three images of the identical, i.e. the very same pair of pyjamas, that clearly were in possession of the McCanns for the Crimewatch programme on 5 June and the Amsterdam press call on 7 June 2007? (The answer should be obvious from the various wisps of cotton in exactly the same places on each of the three photos).

If that is agreed, we can then move on. If you don't agree, please explain why. So...

QUESTION 2   What is your best explanation for the provenance of the first two of these three photos, i.e. the one credited to the Press Agency and which was published in the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph on 10 May 2007? 

Is it (A) the explanation given by Martin Roberts? (Photo taken by McCanns in their apartment on the morning of 3 May...passed by them (or someone else on their behalf) to the Luis Forra Press Agency...passed by them to the Press Agency)

Or is it (B) some other explanation? If you vote (B), could you please add your alternative explanation..

And finally...

QUESTION 3    (assuming you agree that we are looking at the same pair of pyjamas in all three photos)

Were these: (A) Madeleine's jammies? or

(B) Amelie's jammies?

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

Thanks in advance for your answers




.

The first two images are the same photo, just with different colour saturation.
The position of the wrinkles, and the stray piece of cotton, make that very clear.
The stray piece of cotton at the inside bottom of the left leg in the GM picture is also very suspiciously like that in Photos 1 and 2

PeterMac wrote:The first two images are the same photo, just with different colour saturation.
The position of the wrinkles, and the stray piece of cotton, make that very clear.
The stray piece of cotton at the inside bottom of the left leg in the GM picture is also very suspiciously like that in Photos 1 and 2

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

I should add that there is a second stray piece of cotton common to both photos.   

Yes, images 1 & 2 are the same photo, but which came up differently when published by the two respective newspapers.

I am at a loss to understand why anyone on this forum would disagree with your conclusion.

But we shall see

It's helpful the way Dr Roberts used the length of Gerry's arm [2] against Amelie's leg. I can't see how those jammies could fit Amelie.

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

Jill Havern wrote:It's helpful the way Dr Roberts used the length of Gerry's arm [2] against Amelie's leg. I can't see how those jammies could fit Amelie.

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

There is one simple way that we can understand the very detailed and technical article by Dr Martin Roberts.

All is explained by this simple theory:

That the claim by the McCanns that these were Amelie's pyjamas was untrue








.

Thanks for that Mainline, much clearer.

You can see the strands at the hem of the pyjama top better in your enlarged pics.

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

Surely this would be a huge baby?

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