Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'

by Guest 15.08.20 13:04

Jill Havern wrote:
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.
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'?

The PJ was going to search those boats to see if there was anything related to Madeleine. A photograph of pyjamas identical to those of Madeleine would help in that regard, thus the reason why I think that photo may have been attached to the documents.

I did not say the McCanns were the ones who took the photo.

by **crusader** 15.08.20 13:14

So, if the pictures of the marina and pyjamas came from the UK via the Leicestershire Constabulary, then they are "official" reproductions of what Kate gave to them on the 8th May.

by **crusader** 15.08.20 13:20

Can somebody please remind me if there was a photo anywhere before the 8th May of the" Amalie " PJs.

by Guest 15.08.20 13:52

crusader wrote:So, if the pictures of the marina and pyjamas came from the UK via the Leicestershire Constabulary, then they are "official" reproductions of what Kate gave to them on the 8th May.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean she was the one who took the photo.

Wasn't it already established that the pyjama photo was taken by Luís Forra?

by **crusader** 15.08.20 13:58

It's attributed to Luis Forra, and the PA, But no proof that he took it.

by **PeterMac** 15.08.20 16:09

in this video clip, at 1:42 Kate says, after a bit of dithering with the button and other things
"... these are ACTUALLY the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken . . "

And the piece of stray cotton on the bottom of the left leg is very clear.

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

by **Tony Bennett** 15.08.20 16:15

pauloalexandre wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
If you do agree that, surely that limits the debate to: "Were they Madeleine's or Amelie's pyjamas, and when were they bought?"
Kate said in the press conference that they were Amelie's pyjamas. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

I find this approach to investigating what really happened to Madeleine McCann fascinating.

I think the principle you are enunciating is this:

"If Kate said something, it must be true, unless we have overwhelming evidence to say otherwise".

On that principle, we might as well wade though all 392 pages of Kate's book, close it, and get on with the rest of our lives without wasting our time trying to solve the mystery.

Meanwhile, we all eagerly await your explanation of how (according to you) a photo of Amelie's pyjamas got to the Luis Forra press agency.

See if you can do better than Dr Martin Roberts

by **Tony Bennett** 15.08.20 16:27

PeterMac wrote:in this video clip, at 1:42 Kate says, after a bit of dithering with the button and other things
"... these are ACTUALLY the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken ..."

To be absolutely fair, the full quote, to provide better context, is this:

"...so, these are actually, apart from the size and the button at the back, which Madeleine's doesn't actually have, these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken..."

We find the word 'actually' there three times in one sentence.

The emphasis on the size and button at the back is CONTRARY to what we understand about the manufacture of pyjamas for very young children.

The ones for 1-2 year olds had NO button.

The ones for 3-4 year olds DID have a button.

In addition, there is the great unlikelihood (admittedly not an impossibility) that the two sisters would be wearing identical patterned pyjamas.

.

by SueH 15.08.20 17:31

Generally babies tops do have a button at the back of the neck or envelope style collars to aid in putting them on. Toddlers and children’s do not.
The pair that the PJ were provided by M&S and said to be identical to Maddie’s were for age 2-3. Maddie was not tall for her age.
M&S sizes are generous, I remember buying my sons from M&S they always seem to last a good year and a bit and still fit.
For this reason alone I say the buttoned one’s were Amelie’s, that’s not to say they couldn’t be hand-me-downs from Maddie.

by Guest 15.08.20 18:38

To say 'actually' is a major faux Pas of Kate's in this instance. Precision and linguistic command is a requisite attribute and necessity of being a medic. This suggests that she is 'actually' and almost definitely telling the truth on this occasion. If they weren't Madeleine's she would have most likely have said 'almost identical to' (except for the size and the button). So familiar infact with these particular pyjamas is she that notice how she doesn't hesitate before revealing the precise location of the motif and the correct leg when holding them up facing away from her. If she was precise in this respect, her choice of the word actually is highly likely to have also been.

by Guest 15.08.20 22:30

Tony Bennett wrote:
pauloalexandre wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
If you do agree that, surely that limits the debate to: "Were they Madeleine's or Amelie's pyjamas, and when were they bought?"
Kate said in the press conference that they were Amelie's pyjamas. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
I find this approach to investigating what really happened to Madeleine McCann fascinating.

I think the principle you are enunciating is this:

"If Kate said something, it must be true, unless we have overwhelming evidence to say otherwise".

On that principle, we might as well wade though all 392 pages of Kate's book, close it, and get on with the rest of our lives without wasting our time trying to solve the mystery.

Well, I can see why you viewed my comment that way, however that's not what I implied. Kate's statement is that those were Amelie's pyjamas and I said that there was nothing in that claim which has been credibly refuted (no offense meant to Dr. Martin Roberts' analysis).

I do appreciate that Kate's claims are no more reliable than a second-hand press report of what a 2-year old Amelie said about "Maddie's jammies".

But you treat that quote as if it were the same as an official statement written/spoken and signed by a witness, like the many ones contained in the PJ files.

Tony Bennett wrote:Meanwhile, we all eagerly await your explanation of how (according to you) a photo of Amelie's pyjamas got to the Luis Forra press agency.

Not according to me. According to the European Press Agency, the person who photographed the pyjamas shown in the press article on 10th May was Luís Forra. If this is true, and I've already contacted him on Facebook to see if he can confirm this, then the theory that Kate McCann photographed them on the morning of 3rd May has no value.

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

Tony Bennett wrote:See if you can do better than Dr Martin Roberts

I'm sorry, this is not a competition to me, and it will never be.

The evidence is what matters - not who's the better researcher.

Let the evidence tell you what happened, instead of forcing it to suit a particular thesis.

by **Tony Bennett** 15.08.20 23:06

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

So you agree that Luis Forra either took a photo of Amelie's pyjamas (on or before 10 May 2007), or created a photo from someone else who took a photo of Amelie's pyjamas.

Either way, who supplied him with either (a) the pyjamas or (b) the photo?,

by Guest 15.08.20 23:11

Tony Bennett wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So you agree that Luis Forra either took a photo of Amelie's pyjamas (on or before 10 May 2007), or created a photo from someone else who took a photo of Amelie's pyjamas.

Either way, who supplied him with either (a) the pyjamas or (b) the photo?,

I do not know.

As I said above, I contacted him this afternoon on Facebook, asking him if he could confirm his alleged ownership of the photo and how he had access to the pyjamas, if he indeed took it. I'm now awaiting his response.

by Guest 16.08.20 0:34

miffy8 wrote:To say 'actually' is a major faux Pas of Kate's in this instance. Precision and linguistic command is a requisite attribute and necessity of being a medic. This suggests that she is 'actually' and almost definitely telling the truth on this occasion. If they weren't Madeleine's she would have most likely have said 'almost identical to' (except for the size and the button). So familiar infact with these particular pyjamas is she that notice how she doesn't hesitate before revealing the precise location of the motif and the correct leg when holding them up facing away from her. If she was precise in this respect, her choice of the word actually is highly likely to have also been.

Kate McCann wrote:These are actually Amelie's pyjamas. They're the same, but obviously they're smaller. Uhm... the top is a pink top and it has the character Eeyore, and short sleeves. And the bottom, as you can see, are white with a small floral pattern and Eeyore again on the bottom right of the leg. So these are actually... apart from the size and the button on the back, which the Madeleine's doesn't have, these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken.

by Guest 16.08.20 1:01

It's all been revealed on this thread and elsewhere on the forum.

Why question Luis Forra? The photograph of the pyjamas is accredited to him, why look for complication with something so straightforward?

Fact is, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that the photograph was supplied by the McCanns or a source close too.

The particular photograph was used by the PJ for their missing person bulletin, there is clearly a chain of custody which in no way includes the McCanns or a source close too.

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

I also pointed out up-thread and gave an example, photographs obtained by a press agency not accredited to the photographer specifically state 'a family handout' -not so in the case of Luis Forra and the pyjama photograph.

The reported case was at the time a missing child, the claim was that the child had been abducted from her bed so wearing pyjamas. Following logic, the PJ would require detail of the child's attire when abducted, or even wandering off alone, for identification. Amelie's pyjamas were used and photographed for that reason.

It's so simple - where is the complication?

Why look for evidence for something that just doesn't exist?

In short...

The pyjamas photographed and accredited to Luis Forra were Amelie's pyjamas - the same pyjamas used by the McCanns during their European publicity tour.

The original photograph as shown in the PJ files shows a backcloth of dark gray/black, not blue as shown later in the PJ's missing persona bulletin.

Sometimes the simplest answer is the most logical.

This is surreal.

by Guest 16.08.20 1:36

Verdi wrote:In short...

The pyjamas photographed and accredited to Luis Forra were Amelie's pyjamas - the same pyjamas used by the McCanns during their European publicity tour.

The original photograph as shown in the PJ files shows a backcloth of dark gray/black, not blue as shown later in the PJ's missing persona bulletin.

This sounds to me like the most logical scenario.

by Guest 16.08.20 1:51

As I say, it's all detailed in this thread.

Alas, it's not what people want to hear.

It's a minor issue anyway.

The important thing is team McCann claimed Madeleine was abducted, evidence, or lack of, suggests this to be a gross falsehood.

Madeleine MCann was not abducted so the pyjamas are immaterial - excuse the pun.

by Guest 16.08.20 2:04

pauloalexandre wrote: ... I contacted him this afternoon on Facebook, asking him if he could confirm his alleged ownership of the photo and how he had access to the pyjamas, if he indeed took it. I'm now awaiting his response.

Being a fellow countryman you might well get an answer - I hope so thumbsup

!

I wouldn't blame him if he doesn't want to get involved.

Like Gonçalo Amaral, no doubt he was just doing his job - and look what happened to him.

by **Jill Havern** 16.08.20 8:41

PeterMac wrote:in this video clip, at 1:42 Kate says, after a bit of dithering with the button and other things
"... these are ACTUALLY the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken . . "

And the piece of stray cotton on the bottom of the left leg is very clear.

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

I posted your comment and this video clip on the cmomm facebewk group and here's some feedback:

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

by **Tony Bennett** 16.08.20 9:03

Verdi wrote:It's all been revealed on this thread and elsewhere on the forum.

Why question Luis Forra? The photograph of the pyjamas is accredited to him, why look for complication with something so straightforward? Fact is, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that the photograph was supplied by the McCanns or a source close too.

Amelie's pyjamas were used...It's so simple - where is the complication? Why look for evidence for something that just doesn't exist? The pyjamas photographed and accredited to Luis Forra were Amelie's pyjamas - the same pyjamas used by the McCanns during their European publicity tour.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I have tried very hard to understand your logic on this issue. Please tell me if this is correct>

1. The McCanns say that these are Amelie's pyjamas. We must therefore believe them unless there's a very good reason for not doing so.

2. You admit from the photographs (showing the same two tell-tale wisps of cotton) that the Luis Forra agency also took (or had given to them,) a photograph of Amelie's actual pyjamas.

If I have got this right so far:

THEN...

3. It follows that at some point (whether directly or via a third party), this selfsame set of pyjamas were either passed to the Luis Forra agency OR the Luis Forra agency obtained a photo of the pyjamas which became accredited to them. (I do not know if you have a view on which of those two things you say happened? It would be helpful if you could say if you have a view one way or another).

This leaves us with several issues, e.g.:

A. The large size of the pyjamas as per the public appearances on 5 & 7 June 2007

B. Why the media did not report on 10 May that these were Amelie's pyjamas

C. Why the McCanns at no stage - even in Kate's book - mentioned that they had either (a) passed Amelie's pyjamas to the Luis Forra agency or (b) passed a photo of Amelie's pyjmas to the agency

D. Why the quality of the photo does not look like that taken by a professional agency

E. Whether the parents really would dress 2-year-old and 3-year-old sisters in exactly the same patterned pyjamas

by **Jill Havern** 16.08.20 9:35

Tony Bennett wrote:E. Whether the parents really would dress 2-year-old and 3-year-old sisters in exactly the same patterned pyjamas

I think they would.

However, as Sean and Amelie are twins I think they would be more likely to dress them in same patterned pyjamas...albeit it not flowered ones for Sean!

But then I don't think we saw Amelie and Madeleine dressed in same patterned day clothes,

and neither did we see Sean and Amelie wearing same patterned day clothes.

All three children seemed to have their own identities.

Except when David Payne saw them all dressed in white on 3rd May looking like angels (so how did Maddie disappear in those pink patterned jammies?)

Kate and Gerry, however, liked to dress alike as though they were twins! big grin

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

by Guest 16.08.20 11:02

1. The McCanns say that these are Amelie's pyjamas. We must therefore believe them unless there's a very good reason for not doing so.

Nobody on this thread has ever insinuated such thing. But what I said was that there's no one who's been able to refute what Kate said about those pyjamas, Martin Roberts' analysis notwithstanding.

I know Kate's statements have to be taken with a grain of salt, but that does not mean one can advance an alternative hypothesis as to everything that she says.

A. The large size of the pyjamas as per the public appearances on 5 & 7 June 2007

As Verdi said some pages ago, size is relative. As we saw from other users' comments on this thread, including [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], buttoned pyjamas are more in line with what younger children wear, and that's what we saw in the press conferences and the Luís Forra photo.

Tony Bennett wrote:B. Why the media did not report on 10 May that these were Amelie's pyjamas

Why should this matter?

Tony Bennett wrote:C. Why the McCanns at no stage - even in Kate's book - mentioned that they had either (a) passed Amelie's pyjamas to the Luis Forra agency or (b) passed a photo of Amelie's pyjmas to the agency

Again, this is irrelevant.

Tony Bennett wrote:D. Why the quality of the photo does not look like that taken by a professional agency

I'm sorry if I'm being ignorant here... but how do you think, in your mind, that photo should have looked like? It's a close-up photo of someone's pyjamas. There's nothing artistic about that.

Tony Bennett wrote:E. Whether the parents really would dress 2-year-old and 3-year-old sisters in exactly the same patterned pyjamas

The pyjamas had the cartoon character Eeyore, which appeals to young children like Madeleine and Amelie. It's not, in any shape or form, infeasible to think they had a similar set of pyjamas.

It happens all the time!

by Guest 16.08.20 11:13

Verdi wrote:As I say, it's all detailed in this thread.

Alas, it's not what people want to hear.

It's a minor issue anyway.

The important thing is team McCann claimed Madeleine was abducted, evidence, or lack of, suggests this to be a gross falsehood.

Madeleine MCann was not abducted so the pyjamas are immaterial - excuse the pun.

I agree with this.

It has already been established, through compelling evidence, that Madeleine was not abducted, mainly due to the impossibility of such scenario and the Tapas 9 statements of what happened that evening.

Why do we need to create complications based on unfounded speculation to reinforce this conclusion?

It's choosing evidence to suit one's conclusion - and that is, quite simply, biased data collection.

by Guest 16.08.20 13:09

in this video clip, at 1:42 Kate says, after a bit of dithering with the button and other things
"... these are ACTUALLY the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken . . "

As righly pointed out by Tony recently, that quote has been abbreviated. If you listen to the video..

...so, these are actually, apart from the size and the button at the back, which Madeleine's doesn't actually have, these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken...
Kate McCann

As for one of the comments on the facebook page - I actually use the word actually regularly, probably about 100 times a day. Does that make me dishonest?

by Guest 16.08.20 13:20

There's one person who left a comment in the Facebook article section that Jill linked above, who said: "The word actually is unnecessary and indicates dishonesty".

This is a prime example of what happens when you apply statement analysis, without having expertise in any way, to speeches like this one - quotes are taken out of context and distorted. Pretty soon after that, people jump to conclusions, instead of interpreting what is being said.

by Guest 16.08.20 13:31

@Tony Bennett

I've answered all of your questions over and over again throughout this thread alone, you choose not to take notice so it's pointless me again repeating past commentary - life's too short.

A three year old child is reported missing. Routine policing, the investigative force want to know what the child was wearing. For the purpose of identification in this particular case, the McCanns provided a pair of their younger daughters pyjamas, said to be the same as those worn by Madeleine when she disappeared.

The pyjamas were photographed and then entered a chain of custody, as can be seen in the PJ files and reproduced throughout this thread. Again routine policing.

That's all we need to know.

The European tour undertaken by the McCanns was clearly (actually?) an elaborate public relations exercise, orchestrated by their media manipulator, Clarence Mitchell and his contacts. The inclusion of the pyjama display was just another part of the unnecessary publicity tour of specific capital cities.

As I said up-thread, if Madeleine had been stolen the first thing the protagonist would do is destroy the evidence, in this case the clothes she was wearing - if still alive. The child certainly wouldn't be paraded around the streets of Europe for hours .. days .. weeks .. months .. years after the event.

This simple fact renders the pyjama debacle null and void. It was just a public relations exercise.

Having said that, watching Clarence Mitchell ushering the dastardly duo about Europe and North Africa is a sight to beheld. The exercise was worth it if only for entertainment value.

by **crusader** 16.08.20 14:13

Snipped from Verdi's post:

A three year old child is reported missing. Routine policing, the investigative force want to know what the child was wearing. For the purpose of identification in this particular case, the McCanns provided a pair of their younger daughters pyjamas, said to be the same as those worn by Madeleine when she disappeared.

The pyjamas were photographed and then entered a chain of custody, as can be seen in the PJ files and reproduced throughout this thread. Again routine policing.---

But, it would seem that the McCann did not provide a pair of Amalie's PJs, they provided a photo of Amalie's PJs.

It's no coincidence that the pyjama photo just happens to be on the "Information from the family" fax sent by the Leicestershire Police to the PJ.

The fax from detective Markley to the PJ shows it is a copy because it has, Public Ministry of Portimao Produced Reproduction on it.

I asked upthread, does anyone know of a photo of "Amalie's" PJs prior to 8th May.

by Guest 16.08.20 14:27

crusader wrote:But, it would seem that the McCann did not provide a pair of Amalie's PJs, they provided a photo of Amalie's PJs.

Why would they? The pyjamas were not needed then. The picture of them was, because a search for Madeleine McCann was ongoing. They needed to know what Madeleine looked like before she was reported missing.

Only later they requested a set of pyjamas from Marks & Spencers, but that was only for forensic examination.

crusader wrote:It's no coincidence that the pyjama photo just happens to be on the "Information from the family" fax sent by the Leicestershire Police to the PJ.

The fax from detective Markley to the PJ shows it is a copy because it has, Public Ministry of Portimao Produced Reproduction on it.

I already explained this - the information from the family was the psychic vision statement, not the photo itself.

The photo was likely added in to give the police something tangible to look for in those boats.

by **Mainline** 16.08.20 14:31

crusader wrote:Snipped from Verdi's post:

A three year old child is reported missing. Routine policing, the investigative force want to know what the child was wearing. For the purpose of identification in this particular case, the McCanns provided a pair of their younger daughters pyjamas, said to be the same as those worn by Madeleine when she disappeared.

The pyjamas were photographed and then entered a chain of custody, as can be seen in the PJ files and reproduced throughout this thread. Again routine policing.---

But, it would seem that the McCann did not provide a pair of Amalie's PJs, they provided a photo of Amalie's PJs.

It's no coincidence that the pyjama photo just happens to be on the "Information from the family" fax sent by the Leicestershire Police to the PJ.

The fax from detective Markley to the PJ shows it is a copy because it has, Public Ministry of Portimao Produced Reproduction on it.

I asked upthread, does anyone know of a photo of "Amalie's" PJs prior to 8th May.

No, as best I can determine the first time a representation of them was published was a facsimile on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

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

by Guest 16.08.20 14:36

Those pyjamas are significant. Kate washed the top because of a tea stain. Why do we need to know that? As I've said before no busy mum washes a tea stain out of a pyjama top. If it bothered you that much you'd chuck the whole outfit in the wash and get a fresh pair out. Washing the top indicates only one pair of PJ's was brought on holiday for a child or you are attempting to wash away something else? I suggest that those pyjamas might be the last thing she wore. Children's bedtime routine is a very important established time for love, stories, hugs, security and happiness. Sadly the child is missing but the
other symbolic elements of that child parent bond remain or remained. In my view she (Kate) had no intention of parting with any of them until she decided to do so.
A) Cuddle cat = still there B) The pink blanket that was on the bed and evidenced by a photograph=still there after the event and C)The pyjamas = still there.
This is how I see it.