Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Madeleine Beth McCann :: McCann Case: The most important areas of research
Page 13 of 16 • 1 ... 8 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Whose pyjamas did the McCanns hold up at those June 2007 press conferences?
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
Jill Havern wrote:Surely this would be a huge baby?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
If the claim by the McCanns is true: ("These are Amelie's pyjamas"), they must have been bought before Saturday 28 April 2007, when Amelie and Sean would be 2 years and 2 months old.
And, to continue the point endorsed by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ("the three photos appear to be of the very same pair of pyjamas"), why the heck would the McCanns take a photo of Amelie's pyjamas on Thursday 3 May 2007?
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Jill Havern likes this post
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
The mcCanns or friend took the pic in their or Payne’s apartment where the twins were moved to that night.
They took the pic to confirm a likeness to what Maddie had on in the story of the abduction.
Sizing - if you bring the hem of the pj top down to the bottom of the crotch of the bottoms this will give a better understanding of the size of the child that would be wearing them. Don’t forget a nappy will be also worn underneath.
I can’t see any relevance as how this will help solve the case at all. However, I do think the tea stain is highly relevant and that’s why KM mentioned it. Absolutely no reason to mention a dirty pair of pjs - kids are always spilling stuff it’s a routine occurrence and so is the washing. But Kate seemed it important enough to mention.
If ever MM’s body is found, she will be wearing her pjs with a stain that helps in the diagnosis of her death imo.
SueH- Posts : 6
Activity : 6
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2020-08-12
Location : Surrey
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
SueH wrote:B - they are all the same photo of Amelie’s.
The mcCanns or friend took the pic in their or Payne’s apartment where the twins were moved to that night.
They took the pic to confirm a likeness to what Maddie had on in the story of the abduction.
Sizing - if you bring the hem of the pj top down to the bottom of the crotch of the bottoms this will give a better understanding of the size of the child that would be wearing them. Don’t forget a nappy will be also worn underneath.
I can’t see any relevance as how this will help solve the case at all. However, I do think the tea stain is highly relevant and that’s why KM mentioned it. Absolutely no reason to mention a dirty pair of pjs - kids are always spilling stuff it’s a routine occurrence and so is the washing. But Kate seemed it important enough to mention.
If ever MM’s body is found, she will be wearing her pjs with a stain that helps in the diagnosis of her death imo.
How very curious!
According to your theory, and according to the McCanns' own evidence, they inexplicably washed Madeleine's pyjamas on the morning of Thursday 3 May. We know from Dr Roberts' evidence (although I know you don't accept it) that there is very good evidence that the McCanns also took a photo of those washed pyjamas.
Now then, you say that amidst all the chaos and commotion after 10pm that night, with the desperate searching for Madeleine, the arrival of first the GNR and then the PJ, the frantic 'phone calls to assorted TV and print media journalists, high-placed friends of the Blairs and Browns, assorted relatives and priests, they suddenly thought to take a photo of Amelie's pyjamas.
Presumably in order to do that, they would have to take her pyjamas off her while she was asleep (hopefully not waking her up), find a blue hessian sheet or sofa, and carefully take a photo, but WITHOUT then immediately handing it to the PJ.
Then you must explain why Kate makes no mention of this in her statements to the police, nor in her diary, nor in her 392-page book.
You must also explain why the McCanns and their advisers allowed the press to report this photo as a 'stock' photo of a pair of pyjamas from a catalogue instead of telling the press: "Oh, we took this photo early in the morning, shortly after Madeleine disappeared".
I must give you very high marks for a very creative theory.
But absolutely zero marks for a theory that fits the known facts. Yours obviously doesn't.
I am afraid you are trapped by the obvious fact that the photos in the Mail and Telegraph on 10 May 2007 are of precisely the same pair of pyjamas as those displayed by the McCanns publicly on 5 and 7 June 2007. No-one at all can escape that fact.
It has IMO forced you into an utterly ridiculous theory.
ETA:
Height charts for girls show the following average heights:
At 2 years 2 months: 86cm or 2' 10"
At 3 years 11 months: 104cm or 3' 5"
A difference of 18cm (7") in height
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Cammerigal likes this post
SueH dislikes this post
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
sharonl wrote: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.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The Portugal Resident wrote:Marks & Spencer in the UK kindly sent us a photograph of the same pyjamas Madeleine McCann was wearing on the night of her disappearance.
Guest- Guest
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
Jill Havern wrote: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.]
Yes, I think these pictures leave it in no doubt that they are the same pyjamas shown in Berlin.
FWIW a picture taken upthread (the numbered one) was taken at the scene of their interview on May 25th.
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: Everything the McCanns say is for a reason, to absolve themselves of any involvement or blame for "the situation Madeleine finds herself in"...
Tea stain on pyjamas
Washing said pyjama top .
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: Yes, I think these pictures leave it in no doubt that they are the same pyjamas shown in Berlin.
@jillhavern wrote: 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.] wrote: No question in my mind the 2 photos are the same, and the pyjamas the McCanns are holding up are the same pyjamas as in the photos.
===================
To recap.
We have TWO strands of cotton in exactly the SAME place, one on the pyjama top, one on the pyjama bottoms, on all three photos.
We have a simple choice:
Either
A Kate McCann is telling the truth and these were Amelie's actual pyjamas, or
B Dr Martin Roberts' analysis is correct and these were Madeleine's actual pyjamas
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
Tony Bennett wrote:amidst all the chaos and commotion after 10pm that night, with the desperate searching for Madeleine, the arrival of first the GNR and then the PJ, the frantic 'phone calls to assorted TV and print media journalists, high-placed friends of the Blairs and Browns, assorted relatives and priests, they suddenly thought to take a photo of Amelie's pyjamas.
Presumably in order to do that, they would have to take her pyjamas off her while she was asleep (hopefully not waking her up), find a blue hessian sheet or sofa, and carefully take a photo, but WITHOUT then immediately handing it to the PJ.
Tony Bennett wrote:
To recap.
We have TWO strands of cotton in exactly the SAME place, one on the pyjama top, one on the pyjama bottoms, on all three photos.
We have a simple choice:
Either
A Kate McCann is telling the truth and these were Amelie's actual pyjamas, or
B Dr Martin Roberts' analysis is correct and these were Madeleine's actual pyjamas
I go with B.
Dr Martin Roberts: "If Madeleine's pyjamas were not in fact abducted, then neither was Madeleine McCann"
____________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MAGA [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MBGA
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
Natasha has just sent it over.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
Having searched the web for photos attributed to Luis Forra, it's clear that there are some he couldn't possibly have taken, one of Madeleine in her red velvet dress for instance. [ Unless of course, he knew the McCann's previous to their holiday in Portugal.]
crusader- Forum support
- Posts : 6799
Activity : 7150
Likes received : 345
Join date : 2019-03-12
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
crusader wrote:I'm now convinced that Luis Forra did not take the photo of Madeleine's PJs.
Having searched the web for photos attributed to Luis Forra, it's clear that there are some he couldn't possibly have taken, one of Madeleine in her red velvet dress for instance. [ Unless of course, he knew the McCanns previous to their holiday in Portugal.]
I think [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that the position here might be similar to that surrounding photos of the McCann children attributed to a certain Paul Grover, a Daily Telegraph and freelance photographer. I believe we have at least one 'Paul Grover' thread on the forum.
We were puzzled to see so many photos of the McCann children, some nice family photographs included, all attributed to him. The explanation we got, from Grover, which IIRC we mostly accepted on the forum, was that the McCanns had given him (or his employers) these photos, entitling him to be presented as the owner of the photos. It is possible that Grover/his employers paid the McCanns a fee for them.
Thus the McCanns took the photo of Madeleine's pyjamas themselves, then handed it to the Luis Forra agency - or more likely an agent on their behalf did so. The Luis Forra agency then presumably obtained the copyright or some legal title to use the photo, and passed it to the British media, presumably for a substantial fee.
--------
In his original article, 'A Nightwear Job', Martin Roberts wrote:
Why on earth should the PJ have seemingly undertaken the same photographic work twice, involving two quite different sets of pyjamas? The [PJ's] forensic record (of garments correctly pictured alongside a scaling reference, i.e. a ruler) is that of a pair of pyjamas supplied on request by M&S (UK), afterwards forwarded to the Forensic Laboratory in Lisbon by Goncalo Amaral, together with a covering letter dated 7 June.
It has nothing whatever to do with the 'official photograph' released in early May [the one that appeared in the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph on 10 May 2007]. In fact the clothing pictured has more in common with that featured in the retailer's own contemporary stock photograph, a copy of which was sent to the Algarve Resident, again on request, and which the 'Resident' published on 8 May - two days before the official release.
Final point: Neither the Algarve Resident photo, nor the official PJ photo based on the pyjamas sent to the PJ by M & S, have any stray wisps of cotton thread on them
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
2 years 2 months - 86cms or 2ft 10
3 years 11 months - 104cms or 3ft 5
According to the McCanns in the Files , Madeleine was 90cms just under 3 ft tall .
So closer to Amelie's average height for her age .
Madeleine is clearly taller than her sister and brother as can be seen from photos , which would mean all 3 children were small for their age .
I am aware of growth spurts and genetics ( my daughter was small for her age but took after her father's family on the maternal line )
So if Madeleine was 90cms , and Amelie smaller , who would those pyjamas really fit ?
____________________
Be humble for you are made of earth . Be noble for you are made of stars .
sandancer- Forum support
- Posts : 1337
Activity : 2429
Likes received : 1096
Join date : 2016-02-18
Age : 71
Location : Tyneside
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Hand-Me- Down?
I read today an article by Dr Martin Roberts - A Nightwear Job.
Admittedly I read it, and then thought 'I'll have to read that again' to be sure I was taking on board what he is saying/suggesting. And I will indeed do that as soon as.
I have always thought his articles insightful, though on an odd occasion, I was left not quite knowing what he was getting at, or that it was just a tad off the wall.
Whilst I would be the first to agree the pyjama tale by Kate McCann is but that, a tale, like much of what she has spouted since the disappearance of Madeleine, stories which usually have a grain of truth but which she manipulates to fit whatever is her agenda, I cannot be in complete agreement with Dr Roberts on this occasion.
As I said, I will have to read once more the article, but what struck me absolutely is idea that these pyjamas were absolutely Madeleine's and not Amelie's?
This, if I am understanding correctly, is based on the pyjamas which were held up for the press by the McCanns, being for a child aged 2/3 years of age. The article stating that this particular style of pyjamas dated from the season pre January 2007.
The implication is, that as Amelie was not 2 years old until the February of 2007 then, her parents would not have purchased for her, in 2006 a pair of pyjamas for a child aged 2/3 years old.
- But what if the McCanns purchased these pyjamas for Madeleine when she was 2/3 years of age?
- What if these pyjamas were purchased early 2006 before Madeleine's 3rd birthday in May 2006, when she would have required pyjamas for an age 2/3? And reportedly Madeleine was not tall for her age.
By May 2007 Madeleine could have outgrown the age 2/3 years size, pyjamas, and her parents could have bought her a new pair, and the pyjamas age 2/3 years then quite likely would have been handed down to Amelie!
That is what happens, if not in most, in many families. Clothes are handed down from one child to another.
So why not this set of pyjamas?
Yes they may still at the time of May 2007 been slightly too big for Amelie (that's the nature of hand-me-downs ) but they would also have been more than a tad too small for Madeleine by May 2007, who at the time of her disappearance was days away from her 4th birthday!
Now from what has been reported the McCanns did not have two dimes to rub together at the time of this holiday in May 2007.
Those who have followed the case will most probably recall a statement by Kate McCann (from her book perhaps?) where she made a big thing over an outfit she had purchased for Madeleine for the holiday, stating that it had been a bit pricey but she had nevertheless splashed out (not verbatim but something along those lines) as she liked it so much.
At the time I read this, I thought she had pretty much made, what to me at least seemed like a pretty much run of the mill purchase, not something that would break the bank, but if the McCanns were short on cash, then perhaps to Kate McCann she'd purchased for Madeleine something spectacular and expensive! Fair enough.
To my knowledge, what we did not hear, was of any wonderful purchase she had made for Amelie for that holiday.
Was that because there was no necessity to purchase for the younger daughter in the same way, as she would have plenty of Madeleine's hand-me-downs, including Madeleine's old pyjamas?
And if the McCanns were short on cash, they would not be up for buying new pyjamas or any other clothing item for Amelie if she could have Madeleine's old ones.
And to those of us who were on the receiving end of hand-me-downs as kids, we will remember all too well our older sibling getting something new!
Also with the greatest respect and with no wish to demean in any way the clothing choices for the McCanns kids, but all pictures I have seen of Madeleine she is wearing clothing that was ill fitting, way too big for her. So did Kate McCann, in general purchase items of a larger size for her kids, or did someone give the McCann family hand-me-downs for Madeleine?
If so, nothing unusual then about the jimjams being passed to Amelie and being too big!
As for pyjamas with or without a button. Often the different sizes in children's clothing for the same item (sold in the same season) have slight differences, be that buttons, bows or whatever. Items of a particular style can also can be bought online only, and not available in store and vice versa. And items from a specific season can at times still be available the next. And sometimes parents buy, when there is a sale, items for their kids to be put away until the following year, when they reach an age when item they will fit the child. Especially when the kids are so young that is not uncommon, to put by, clothing bought in a sale until the child is of an age that the item will fit.
And I would imagine that more than one pair of pyjamas would have been taken on holiday for each child surely for a week long break?
So which is it?
Madeleine at 4 years old was on holiday with a set of pyjamas way too small for her, OR her sister Amelie was perhaps, on that holiday, wearing Madeleine's hand me downs, a set of pyjamas that were still at that time a bit too big for the child? The nature of hand-me-downs!
McCanns like any other family, I am sure, had the younger daughter wearing the clothes outgrown by the eldest!
It is perfectly possible that the pyjamas were at one time Madeleine's and had been passed down to Amelie, as they don't exactly look new!
Or were McCanns that skint that they were squeezing Madeleine into jimjamas way too small for her? Madeleine at that time would be wearing pyjamas for a 4 year old or 4/5 year old. There's a big difference between a size for a 4 year old and a 2/3 year old.
Easier for Amelie to wear a pair too big, than for Madeleine to wear a pair way too small!
And for that reason I cannot agree completely with Dr Robert's!
Of course I may have completely misunderstood this part of the article - the sizing, style and season of the jimjams!
And of course I will read again the article.
If Madeleine was murdered by this alleged intruder on the night of her disappearance/soon after, chances are, if found, she would be wearing her pyjamas (if pyjamas are what she was wearing when removed from apartment)
If taken by an abductor to be kept alive, the pyjamas would have been disposed of as soon as, and the child dressed in some other garments.
Kate McCanns pyjama tale, while not being the complete and honest truth, it will have elements of truth. It is just figuring out which bits are the lies, which bits are the truth, and the WHY behind the bits that are lies!
But for sure Kate McCann has led everyone a merry dance with her pyjama tales. A tale that started on the morning of 3rd May 2007 when she introduced the stain, and oh how the story grew from there. She'll have her reason for inventing this little tale, a tale she just had to tell the police she said as she wanted to be up front and honest, and it might have been relevant to the case said she.
Sadly she didn't find answering the 40 questions put to her by Portuguese Police to be relevant to the case but her crazy story of a stain on a pair of pyjamas, one she couldn't identify and one she didn't know of how it got there, and didn't think to ask Madeleine, we are expected to believe and feel it relevant?
Two doctors who could not identify a stain on their child's jimjams?
Kate McCann:
[size=16]"The only other unexplained detail I remember from that morning was a LARGE brown stain I noticed on Madeleine’s pink Eeyore pyjama top. I couldn’t recall seeing it the night before and I had NO idea how it might have got there. It looked like a tea stain. Gerry and I do drink quite a bit of tea, and Madeleine, too, would have the odd small cup. So at the time I just assumed it was a drink spillage that had escaped our attention, and that might well be all it was. But now, of course, we can no longer make assumptions about anything that can’t be accounted for..."
Pull the other one Kate McCann!
[/size]
- Two parents, two doctors who couldn't identify a tea stain?
- Two parents, two doctors who both managed, when putting their daughter to bed, to miss A LARGE BROWN STAIN ON HER PYJAMA TOP?
- Two parents, two doctors, who abandoned their kids in an unlocked apartment, next morning kid has LARGE BROWN STAIN ON HER PYJAMA TOP, and neither of them think to ask the kid how it came about?
- Kate McCann claimed to have slept in SAME room as Madeleine that night.
So if NO LARGE brown stain on the pyjamas when kid was put to bed. Couple hours later Kate McCann arrives back at apartment, sleeps in SAME room as her daughter. Daughter gets up in morning, LARGE BROWN STAIN on jimjams, then logically (going along with Kate McCanns story) the stain the spillage occurred between the time the kid was left on her own and the time Kate McCann returned to sleep in the room.
And if Madeleine was up and out of bed during that time (crying incident time, and Madeleine always got up to go look for her parents when she or her siblings were crying and upset) and spilled something, then the evidence of such spillage would be there to be seen on McCanns return to the apartment.
YET, here we have Kate McCann telling the world in her book 'Madeleine' that at the time of writing, the STAIN on Madeleine's pyjama top was still considered an UNEXPLAINED DETAIL, and that they can no longer MAKE ASSUMPTIONS.
THAT SHE HAD NO IDEA HOW THE STAIN GOT THERE!
TWO DOCTORS WHO COULD NOT EVEN MAKE A STAB IN THE DARK AS TO HOW THAT STAIN GOT THERE?
You have to fuckin laugh at the gall and lies of this female and the sheer stupidity of anyone who believes that two doctors, two parents could not identify a tea stain!
And if they couldn't and didn't seek to find what else that LARGE BROWN STAIN might have been then THEY PAIR OF THEM ARE NOT FIT TO BE PARENTS.
They had according to their tale, left their kids alone in the apartment.
Doesn't matter what the fuck the stain was, it should have had ALARM BELLS RINGING for this pair of IRRESPONSIBLE, HORRIBLE PARENTS. It should have told them that SOMETHING WAS FAR WRONG, THEIR KID WAS OUT OF BED IN THEIR ABSENCE AND SPILLING STUFF ON HER JIMJAMS, AND POSSIBLY STUFF THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OUT OF HER REACH! IT SHOULD HAVE TOLD THEM - DON'T EVER LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE AGAIN TOO DANGEROUS!
How many brown substances were in that apartment that Madeleine could have spilled on her jimjams? They must have fuckin' known!
How hard in a vacation apartment would it have been, by a process of elimination to discover which of any BROWN SUBSTANCE (or any substance that would leave a brown stain) Madeleine could have had access to in their absence and spilled?
Would a child of Madeleine's age if she had spilled something, then cleared it up before mummy and daddy came back from the bar?
And if Madeleine (though doubtful) was partial to a SMALL CUP OF TEA, I'm darn well sure she must have spilled a few of those small cups down her small pyjama top before that vacation in Portugal, and mommy dearest would know a tea stain when she SAW ONE!
And when such young kids spill stuff down their clothes, chances are, in the case of jimjams that not only the pyjama top was splashed with tea or whatever, the bottoms also.
McCann states in her book - 'a tea stain might well be all it was?'
Well knock me down with a fucking feather:
MOMMY KATE McCANN THE ONLY MOTHER ON THE PLANET WHO HAND WASHED A PIECE OF HER KIDS'S CLOTHING, A PIECE WITH A LARGE BROWN STAIN, AND COULDN'T TELL IF IT WAS A TEA STAIN!
ADDED TO WHICH SHE DIDN'T BOTHER TO DISCOVER WHAT IT MIGHT BE IF NOT TEA STAIN.
I have addressed this issue many times in various blogs, and in fact only recently did so.
Kate McCanns pyjama tale is so far out, so farcical that no one with a working brain cell could possibly believe it.
She said IN REFERENCE TO THE STAIN, they could NO LONGER MAKE ASSUMPTIONS. But her story is created for that exact purpose, so that the reader/listener to her tale will make the assumption that if she COULD NOT IDENTIFY a tea stain then the stain had to be something more sinister.
The woman is dangerous and devious!
And if she had not noticed it the previous night then it could not have been there, as how could she have missed such a stain when she dressed Madeleine in the pyjamas for bed? How could they have missed the LARGE BROWN STAIN?
That is exactly what she wants the world to believe that THEY could not have missed the stain before leaving their kids alone that night.
So IF the stain magically appeared on the pyjamas when she and Gerry McCann were out enjoying themselves then a BIG BAD MAN MUST HAVE GONE INTO THE APARTMENT AND PUT A BIG BROWN STAIN ON MADELEINE'S PYJAMAS, one that WASN'T TEA,THE NIGHT PRIOR TO HER CHILD DISAPPEARING!
No one was to think not even for a second that the kid might have gotten out of bed and spilled something, no, no no.
And no one was to dare think that Madeleine, being partial to a small cup of tea might have gotten out of bed and tried to make one!
It can only be, it has to be, A BIG BAD MAN WHO DONE IT, WHO MADE THAT LARGE BROWN STAIN. One who returned the following night and took Madeleine FROM HER BED, never to be seen again!
Whether Kate McCanns pyjama tale was only to serve the purpose of planting the idea in the minds of the public that someone was in that apartment the night prior to Madeleine's disappearance is anyone's guess.
BUT ONE THING FOR SURE, the STORY of the PYJAMAS, as told is NOT TRUE!
No way on this earth is it possible that DOCTOR Kate McCANN and DOCTOR Gerry McCANN could not identify whatever the alleged stain might have been. And no way would responsible parents in the circumstances not seek to discover what that stain was, not ask the child.
Shed load of shit that story.
Apologies for digressing!
I hate to say it, but I feel Dr Robert's article has really just caused confusion, it doesn't make matters any clearer. Too many cooks spoil the broth they say, in this case, too many pairs jimjams makes the story more unbelievable than Kate McCanns version! And when one strays from logic... it is far from helpful!
And whatever pyjamas (if any) Madeleine was wearing at the time of being removed from the apartment really makes not a hoot of difference to the case, to her ever being found. Knowing the type of pyjamas wouldn't lead to the missing child, but the unravelling of the story created by Kate McCann re the pyjamas (and all of her other tales, crying incident included) would do exactly that.
Up to the Met Police, but not a chance in hell of them doing that.
And as to the Kate McCanns comment that she wished Madeleine had been dressed in her warmer Barbie pyjamas as it was a cold windy night when Madeleine vanished in her short sleeved Eyore ones, and would be cold? Another load of guff to re-enforce the idea that the child was wearing eyore short sleeved pyjamas.
Does she actually state that she packed the Barbie jimjams or that they had long sleeves for instance?
You see often Kate McCann spouts something and it is misleading. Speaking of Barbie pyjamas as she did might lead some to think there was a pair of Barbie jimjams available in Portugal. Had there been, would be unusual for the stained ones to be once more put on the child, especially a cold night if she had a warmer pair!
She has taken the world for a ride!
And, had any stain on the jimjams been blood as some suggest, then the DOCTOR DUO surely would have been able to identify it as such?
Just as if it had been a tea stain they would also have been able to identify it?
And just as surely had it been anything other than the aforementioned, they would have been able to identify the stain by that process of elimination I spoke of earlier, and that is what a PARENT WOULD DO!
The pyjamas held up by the McCanns for the press conference?
We cannot say categorically that they were not the younger child's, they could well have been hand-me-downs!
On other hand Madeleine might have gotten a new outfit but no new jimjams for the vacation, just squeezed into an old pair that she had grown out of?
As to what Madeleine McCann was actually wearing when removed from that apartment, be it pyjamas or any other garment, the parents for sure know exactly what that would be.
Anyone's guess at to whether they have told the truth in this regard.
Anyone's guess as to whether there ever was two pairs of Marks and Spencer Eyore pyjamas packed for the vacation in Portugal, one for each female child.
What we do know for sure is that the McCanns produced ONE pair for the press, and claimed there had been TWO!
Madeleine's pair MISSING, just like she is!
And for sure that excerpt from Kate McCanns book is the biggest load of bullshit!
Was there ever a stain on any pyjama top?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Kate McCanns book titled Madeleine, contained little about her daughter Madeleine, but I am sure if she wrote a bewk on the life of the pyjamas, she would be able to fill it cover to cover. And the loyal but somewhat seemingly dim bunch that are their UK followers would eagerly await its arrival at their local book store, queuing for hours, happy to part with the £ in their pocket for their copy of Kate McCann's Pyjama Tales.
- Chapter One - Kate and The Mystery of the Stained Pyjamas
- Chapter Two - Kate Shock at Breakfast Maddie's Jimjams
- Stained.
- Chapter Three - Kate Fails, to ask Madeleine About the Stain
- Chapter Four - Kate Fails to Check Stain Against Substances in 5A
- Chapter Five - Kate & the Mysterious Pyjama Stain 1 Hour On
- Chapter Six - Kate Not Messin' Pyjamas Laundered
- Chapter Seven- Kate Adds Some Stain Remover
- Chapter Eight - Kate Angry at Portuguese Stain Remover (if this was any other country that stain remover would be more effective. I'm only one doing anything pro-active re this stain)
- Chapter Nine - Kate Hangs Pyjamas Out to Dry.
- Chapter Ten - Kate Astonished How Quickly Pyjamas Dry in Portugal - by Lunchtime!
- Chapter Eleven - Kate Dresses Madeleine in the Pyjamas
- Chapter Twelve - Kate Puts Madeleine to Bed Dressed in Pyjamas
- Chapter Thirteen - Kate Discovers Madeleine & Pyjamas Have Disappeared (but has the stain?)
- Chapter Thirteen - Kate & Windy Night, Fears Maddie Cold (in Short Sleeved Eeyore Pyjamas)
- Chapter Fourteen - Kate Wishes Maddie Wearing Warmer Barbie Pyjamas
- (Barbie beats Eeyore hands down every time)
- Chapter Fifteen - Kate Tells Police About Vanishing Pyjamas
- Chapter Sixteen - Kate & Jane Tanner Discover Telepathy
- (without having colluded Tanner is able to describe Maddies Jimjams just as Kate did! Awesome powers they have. Funny if they'd gotten their wires crossed though and Jane 'saw' LONG sleeves.
- Chapter Seventeen - Kate & Redwood at Odds Over Pyjamas.
- Chapter Eighteen - Kate Angry at Redwood (he dressed Crecheman's kid in LONG sleeved pyjamas)
- Chapter Nineteen - Kate Angry at Smithman (Smith's see LONG SLEEVES)
- Chapter Twenty - Kate slams Smith's, Redwood & LONG SLEEVES - ('I know they were not long sleeved, I WAS THERE!')
- Chapter Twenty-One - Kate's Key of the Door (sorry wrong book, that's a whole other story)
- Chapter Twenty -Two - Kate can't make love to Gerry (all Maddie supporters feel your pain on that one honey)
And so the nonsense goes on!
l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
12th March 2016
Secondthoughts2- Posts : 83
Activity : 88
Likes received : 5
Join date : 2020-08-01
SueH likes this post
Cammerigal dislikes this post
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
I bet you feel better now you've got that lot off your chest.
All will become clear if you read all the posts in this thread.
crusader- Forum support
- Posts : 6799
Activity : 7150
Likes received : 345
Join date : 2019-03-12
Cammerigal likes this post
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
It is from L'azzeri lies in the Sun blog!
I will come to my own conclusions when I have read enough on the subject to do so.
Secondthoughts2- Posts : 83
Activity : 88
Likes received : 5
Join date : 2020-08-01
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
Secondthoughts2 wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
It is from L'azzeri lies in the Sun blog!
I will come to my own conclusions when I have read enough on the subject to do so.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] was spot on when s/he advised you: "All will become clear if you read all the posts in this thread".
The author of 'Lazzeri-lies-in-the-Sun' is a hero on this forum for many wonderfully entertaining and often bitingly satirical comments on the Madeleine McCann case.
But nobody is perfect, and I fear that, on this particular occasion, the great author 'Lazzeri' fell into error.
It is clear, reading his article, that he was over-focused on the issue of the size of the pyjamas. And to be fair, Martin Roberts did spend a lot of time on that issue.
But the size of the pyjamas was really a secondary issue. The rest of Martin Roberts' article was a brilliantly researched forensic analysis of the source of those photographs that appeared in the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph on 10 May 2007.
Credit must also go to him for observation. AFAIK he was the first McCann researcher to spot those two sets of incriminating stray wisps of cotton which lie right at the heart of this entire thread.
And of course his analysis of Madeleine's pyjamas meshes neatly into other key analyses discussed on this forum about what really happened to Madeleine McCann.
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Cammerigal likes this post
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
Brilliant !
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
SueH- Posts : 6
Activity : 6
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2020-08-12
Location : Surrey
Secondthoughts2 likes this post
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
SueH wrote:If Maddie was not wearing her pyjamas, what was she wearing? Were any other items of her clothing reported missing?
Thats a good question. The children were reportedly bathed and put into PJs around 6 - 6.30, however Kate once said that Madeleine was sometimes difficult to get indoors when it was time to get ready for bed and would run around playing hide and seek.
If we knew what Madeleine was wearing when she met her fate it would give us a better indication of the time. If there was only one set of Pjs, then this would have been before 7pm. If we believe, as many of us now do, that Madeleine had died on the Sunday, we could narrow down the time of death to 1.30 pm to 7pm on that day.
SueH likes this post
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
Thanks for reply. I haven't read Dr Roberts piece but will do, and as I said to Crusader, I will then reach my conclusion.
McCanns would need to have been so very certain that no trace of Madeleine was ever going to be found to have stuck their necks out in saying that she was wearing those particular pyjamas when she vanished, if she wasn't?
Begs question too, why all the drama about a tea stain?
Hypothetically, if she had been found, or her dead body found - in what would she have been clothed? Whoever removed her from the apartment would s/he/they have wrapped her in bedding of some description, and disposed of her body where/how?
Come to think of it, I don't think I have read anywhere anyone's thoughts on how Madeleine's body might have been disposed of?
Thank again
Oh and, this was the other link I posted earlier re pyjamas
Big Pyjamas
After the screening of Crimewatch last night, there were hundreds of calls if not thousands to their hotline. Andy Redwood was derrlighted!
Seems all over the UK parents wanted to know who stocks those pyjamas - the ones that grow with your kid!
As Andy revealed the 'Big Pyjamas' he told viewers - This will be the ones to buy this Christmas. Stocks will be limited - they may be difficult to find.
Holding back the tears, he spoke poignantly of the moment he discovered the pyjamas. He'd heard they existed - pyjamas that grow with your child - but like everyone else - he would not believe it until he saw a pair for himself.
He had not wanted to promise his young offspring a pair until he was sure such a thing existed. Little did he know when he took on the Review of the Madeleine case, that he would soon have a proud father moment where he could present them with a pair - as unknown to him and just around the corner - a pair of magic pj's !
The Big Pyjamas launched during Crimewatch UK are sure to be this years best seller over the festive season!
The Mystery British father said: My wife and I recommend them - Our kid, now 8 years old has been wearing them for the past six years - Sometimes we've slipped up and put them in washing machine at 60 degrees, and they just don't shrink...Unbelievable!
I remember well, the first time Officer Redwood saw the pyjamas, an emotional moment, he broke down, what a tiny tears for a big guy.
When would that have been..? Now let me think, that would have been around the time...let me think...oh yeh when there was all that stuff in the papers about a libel trial - and his Review wasn't going too well so I'd heard... - I hadn't heard Madeleine was missing though or anything at all about a sighting of a man who looked like me, carrying a child that funny way I do, the child wearing pyjamas just like my daughter's and from just around the corner from the McCann holiday apartment where I had passed that night. What are the chances of that eh? Yes, M'Lud, No M'Lud, Yes I'm sure M'Lud I'm not making it up. Me and the wife - we never knew nuffin about Madeleine going missing -it was when Officer Redwood called at our home we could see how distraught he was. David Cameron had given him mission impossible he said sumfin like that, said through his tears.
When we showed him the pyjamas he started jumping up and down, shouting about a 'rerverlayshun' we thought it must be a police term - wife and I just looked at each other - A rerverlayshun?'
We thought it would be a nice thing to do - so we offered him the pyjamas - my child hadn't outgrown them- I guffawed at my own joke, you can't outgrow these big pyjamas! Officer Redwood - said he was derrlighted, proper derrlighted he was.
My wife and I,thought it would be another nice thing to do, so WE suggested to HIM that if his Review wasn't going so well, that we could be the 'Tanner sighting' if he wanted us to -he broke down...his prayers had been answered he said.
It was grand seeing the pyjamas on Crimewatch - the wife said though she hopes the public do understand the magic and the mystery they hold - that back six years ago - those pyjama legs would not have been so long that they could have covered the legs of a child three times the size of our then 2 year old daughter, that they understood the pyjamas grow with you....
I said to her - they will - they will understand exactly what is going on...'the public are not stupid' I said to her.
END
A friend called me last night, no, not to ask where she could purchase these wonderful pyjamas but to ask if the mystery British man had been in prison for the past six years along with his wife of course!
l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
15th October 2013
Secondthoughts2- Posts : 83
Activity : 88
Likes received : 5
Join date : 2020-08-01
Cammerigal dislikes this post
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
Perhaps David Payne could help with pyjamagate - did he not say that he was in McCann apartment and saw all three children, bathed, ready for bed, in their pyjamas, looking like little angels?
Would he have noticed what style pyjamas? Probably not.
If for talks sake, he was able to confirm what Madeleine was wearing, and it was the eyeore pyjamas - would we then have to assume that they were later removed?
Also, Madeleine was unwell that evening was she not, so she may not have been running around that night before bedtime?
Secondthoughts2- Posts : 83
Activity : 88
Likes received : 5
Join date : 2020-08-01
Cammerigal dislikes this post
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
Secondthoughts2 wrote:@Sharoni
Perhaps David Payne could help with pyjamagate - did he not say that he was in McCann apartment and saw all three children, bathed, ready for bed, in their pyjamas, looking like little angels?
Would he have noticed what style pyjamas? Probably not.
If for talks sake, he was able to confirm what Madeleine was wearing, and it was the eyeore pyjamas - would we then have to assume that they were later removed?
Also, Madeleine was unwell that evening was she not, so she may not have been running around that night before bedtime?
Payne said that they were all dressed, mostly in white. But can we really believe anything that Payne has told us? Did Paynes' visit to the McCanns apartment on May 3rd really take place? Even if he did go there, was it on that particular evening? With so many discrepancies between his version of events and Kates', it is highly unlikely that this ever happened.
How likely is it that he could remember what the children were wearing but couldn't remember that Kate was in nothing but a towel?
And, If Madeleine disappeared on April 29th, obviously he did not see her in her PJs on May 3rd.
Cammerigal likes this post
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
Exactly! And can we really believe anything any of the doctors & co said?
The very reason a reconciliation was - still is imperative - and the very reason that they, the doctors & co will never agree to take part in one despite the case remaining open at this time. Despite still claiming they believe their daughter is out there - they won't assist - is they know it will show that they have lied.
But that is them. Does make one wonder - why Met Police and now German police blatantly ignore what is obvious to us laymen out here - that a reconciliation even if it doesn't solve the case, it throws it wide open, it would officially prove/demonstrate that the statements given by these people are wholly untruthful!
One for Peter Mac - What would prevent, if anything, the police forces involved in this (active) case today (or any case for that matter, after years have gone by since event) carrying out a reconciliation based on statements to police by the chief witnesses shall we say, and followed to the letter of said statements?
Would not that be something that officers would wish to explore in their efforts to solve case - the glaring inconsistencies/lies surely should, even at this stage be something that throws up a red flag to police officers of whatever rank, world over?
I don't believe Madeleine disappeared on 29th April By disappeared on that date are you saying she died on that date, or simply disappeared on that date, but was still alive until..?
As for all the suspects they periodically pull from the hat, where/what time would they squeeze in one of these suspects (Brueckner for example) to fit with a reconciliation based on the witness statements given by the doctors would be something to behold.
Brings us back to WHY these people have been so protected by authorities!
Secondthoughts2- Posts : 83
Activity : 88
Likes received : 5
Join date : 2020-08-01
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
Nothing
Except that it is impossible to achieve as a simple reading of the statements shows.
Dr Amaral saw this very early on, which is why they asked them to come back and do it !
And is why they all refused.
This is a plot of the 'ludicrous' thing they would have do do.
And eat a 3 course meal at the same time.
It is self evidently impossible.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Cammerigal likes this post
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Perhaps David Payne could help with pyjamagate - did he not say that he was in McCann apartment and saw all three children, bathed, ready for bed, in their pyjamas, looking like little angels?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I appreciate you are quite new to most aspects of this case, but I should tell you that long ago on CMOMM we KNEW that this alleged visit by David Payne to the McCanns on 3 May 2007 never happened.
We covered this long ago in the '20 CONTRADICTIONS' article which showed how overwhelming the contradictions were:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I would respectfully suggest that there is only one plausible explanation for this, namely that both parties planned in advance to make a false statement about this alleged visit.
Then, of course, the Portuguese Police quite rightly probed each of them for more detail.
And then the lies unravelled. They had to make up what happened on that visit! And made a complete hash of it!
The visit never happened, and the only relevance of it is to ask WHY they made up this tale
.
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
Secondthoughts2 wrote:
I don't believe Madeleine disappeared on 29th April By disappeared on that date are you saying she died on that date, or simply disappeared on that date, but was still alive until..?
What is your best explanation for the fact that we have five photos of Madeleine alive, three on Saturday 28th April 2007, one about 11am on Sunday 29th April and one more at 1.29pm or 2.29pm on Sunday 29th April - but none for the rest of the week?
Also, what is your best explanation for why the 'Last Photo' of Madeleine by the pool had its date stamp changed from 29 April to 3 May?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I only ask because the answer to these questions is directly related to the fact that on 5 June and 7 June 2007, the McCanns were able to hold up Madeleine's actual pyjamas on that holiday - a fact that Dr Martin Roberts was able to work out but not the combined brains of the PJ, Leicestershire Police and Scotland Yard.
And as we are off-topic now, we really should return this thread to this issue of the pyjamas.
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Cammerigal likes this post
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
Nowhere near a fact.Tony Bennett wrote:
I only ask because the answer to these questions is directly related to the fact that on 5 June and 7 June 2007, the McCanns were able to hold up Madeleine's actual pyjamas on that holiday - a fact that Dr Martin Roberts was able to work out but not the combined brains of the PJ, Leicestershire Police and Scotland Yard.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the pyjamas shown at the London and Amsterdam press conferences belonged to Madeleine at the time of her disappearance.
They may be the same ones as those allegedly photographed by Luís Forra, but without more data to confirm it, this theory holds no water, and quite frankly, it makes no sense for Kate to have photographed Madeleine's pyjamas on the morning of the 3rd of May. What would be the purpose? What is she accomplishing by taking a picture of the pyjamas? Making sure people know those are Madeleine's pyjamas - the same pyjamas that she was abducted in?
The McCanns don't strike me as being stupid. They wouldn't do such thing and there is no reason for them to do it anyway, since it doesn't help their abduction story.
Guest- Guest
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
The information was a statement from Kate's friend about an alleged psychic vision that Madeleine was on a boat. It was clearly written after 8 May, because the friend mentions a past conversation that she had with Kate on the 8th.Dr. Martin Roberts wrote: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'.
One reason I can think of for the pyjama photo being included along the statement and the boat photographs is to remind the Portuguese police what Madeleine was wearing when she was "abducted", just so in case they find anything important.
Guest- Guest
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
I think you agree with the vast majority here that these pyjamas, displayed at two conferences in June 2007, were the McCanns', i.e. they did not suddenly get them from somewhere else for the purpose of displaying them on the Crimewatch Show (5 June) and at the Amsterdam Hilton press conference (7 June). Do we agree on that?pauloalexandre wrote:Nowhere near a fact.Tony Bennett wrote:
I only ask because the answer to these questions is directly related to the fact that on 5 June and 7 June 2007, the McCanns were able to hold up Madeleine's actual pyjamas on that holiday - a fact that Dr Martin Roberts was able to work out but not the combined brains of the PJ, Leicestershire Police and Scotland Yard.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the pyjamas shown at the London and Amsterdam press conferences belonged to Madeleine at the time of her disappearance.
They may be the same ones as those allegedly photographed by Luís Forra, but without more data to confirm it, this theory holds no water, and quite frankly, it makes no sense for Kate to have photographed Madeleine's pyjamas on the morning of the 3rd of May. What would be the purpose? What is she accomplishing by taking a picture of the pyjamas? Making sure people know those are Madeleine's pyjamas - the same pyjamas that she was abducted in?
The McCanns don't strike me as being stupid. They wouldn't do such thing and there is no reason for them to do it anyway, since it doesn't help their abduction story.
If you do agree that, surely that limits the debate to: "Were they Madeleine's or Amelie's pyjamas, and when were they bought?"
You wrote: "They may be the same ones as those allegedly photographed by Luís Forra, but without more data to confirm it, this theory holds no water".
Your denial that the two stray wisps of cotton in exactly the same place on both sets of photos is sufficient proof that we are looking at the same pair of pyjamas as in the Luis Forra-credited photo is on a par with those few who still insist that the fabled 'Last Photo' 'may have been' taken on cool, cloudy, windy Thursday 3 May and not warm and sunny Sunday 29 April.
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Cammerigal likes this post
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
I'm not sure I follow this...why would the McCanns take a photograph to remind the PJ of what Madeleine was wearing when she was 'abducted'?pauloalexandre wrote:One reason I can think of for the pyjama photo being included along the statement and the boat photographs is to remind the Portuguese police what Madeleine was wearing when she was "abducted", just so in case they find anything important.
It would be obvious to the PJ that the McCanns knew she was going to be 'abducted'.
____________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MAGA [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MBGA
Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'
Kate said in the press conference that they were Amelie's pyjamas.Tony Bennett wrote:I think you agree with the vast majority here that these pyjamas, displayed at two conferences in June 2007, were the McCanns', i.e. they did not suddenly get them from somewhere else for the purpose of displaying them on the Crimewatch Show (5 June) and at the Amsterdam Hilton press conference (7 June). Do we agree on that?
If you do agree that, surely that limits the debate to: "Were they Madeleine's or Amelie's pyjamas, and when were they bought?"
There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
First of all, I did not "deny" anything.Tony Bennett wrote:You wrote: "They may be the same ones as those allegedly photographed by Luís Forra, but without more data to confirm it, this theory holds no water".
Your denial that the two stray wisps of cotton in exactly the same place on both sets of photos is sufficient proof that we are looking at the same pair of pyjamas as in the Luis Forra-credited photo is on a par with those few who still insist that the fabled 'Last Photo' 'may have been' taken on cool, cloudy, windy Thursday 3 May and not warm and sunny Sunday 29 April.
Secondly, even if they are, so what? It certainly does not indicate, in any way, that we are looking at the pyjamas that Madeleine had before the reported disappearance took place.
Guest- Guest
Page 13 of 16 • 1 ... 8 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
» Dr Martin Roberts - NO WAY OUT
» Another - by Dr Martin Roberts
» Dr. Martin Roberts
» Dr Martin Roberts - NO WAY OUT
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Madeleine Beth McCann :: McCann Case: The most important areas of research