Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'

Can't be certain it's not pareidolia but zooming in and out it looks like SM to me, could be an imprint on the inside since they're M&S ones?

The writing has been discussed on Dr Martin's blog comments:

Anonymous said...

Dr. Roberts - are you suggesting that the photo released 10th May and published by The Telegraph was taken on a plain blue open weave sofa and could have been still wet, having just been washed? As suggested on Candyfloss form, this maybe explains the upper case print seen above Eeyore`s back - an .ALKT.. and the rows of lower case print below. You have to enlarge the photo to see it. Is that also the tea stain shown at the neckline, that KM is supposed to have tried to wash out one morning (I forget which morning).

Gertrude

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


Seems a bit more visible here:

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

Lazz has blogged her views on this:

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

Before retiring from this thread once and for all, I happened upon Kate McCann's inimitable words that I mentioned upthread..

You may be wondering not only what relevance all these minute details might have to anything, but also how I can recall them so distinctly and how accurate my recollections can possibly be. The answer is that, within a couple of days, every single apparently inconsequential thing that happened on that holiday would become vitally important, and Gerry and I would soon be painstakingly trying to extract from our brains every tiny incident, no matter how small, that might have been significant.


Armed with notebook, pen and dated photographs, I would be challenging myself to piece together as comprehensive an outline of the sequence of events as I could. The regular routines of the week helped to make any deviations from them stand out and undoubtedly made this easier.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN


"There is a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found."

Clarence Mitchell

Doug D wrote:Lazz has blogged her views on this:

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

This part of Lazz's blog is beyond hilarious!
Thank you Lazz, you've made my day!

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

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


Above the Eeyore on the top, there appear to be some letters-can anyone explain what they are?

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

  Is it part of a phrase that says 'Ocado' ?

I don't shop at Ocado but maybe someone who does could say?


Could there be a plastic bag inserted between the two layers of the top?  I have done this myself when I have wanted to dry something-you can smooth it out whilst damp and it looks ironed. You can then blow-dry with a hairdrier to speed it up...

Get'emGonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

He took several photos: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The pyjamas aren't listed there, however the quality of the photo on the police site is much better than what we've been looking at. The letters really stand out now, I can definitely see 'ADD'.

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

Also if taken on 05/05 then the conjecture about them being damp is probably wrong.

Martin Roberts said...

Reggie @09:51

"I think the key point is that the jim-jams the McCanns were taking around Europe were Madeleine's, not Amelie's. And you have to wonder why they would do that."

The media response answers that question.

"Re Mr Forra, I'm guessing he had some hand in the cataloguing process for whatever agency, but as for standing in front of the pyjamas with his camera at the ready, then maybe not."

'Most likely' in answer to (a). 'Most likely NOT' in answer to (b)



Martin Roberts said...

Just in case anyone should be wondering about Mr Luis Forra and the lady who "proved categorically that Forra took that photo for the PJ", the same gentleman is on the data record as:

1. Taking pictures at different locations, but at EXACTLY the same time.

2. Taking daylight photographs - at 11.00 p.m.

3. Taking photographs at an event FIVE DAYS before it actually took place.

And

4. Photographing Madeleine McCann (age 2)!

The man's not a photographer, he's a magician. (He also copies other peoples images btw).

Taken from comments section [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks Hobs for face pareidolia!  Been coming here for years now, it's true, you learn something new every day!!

Martin Roberts said...


Forra was credited with having taken a portrait of a very young Madeleine McCann wearing her polka dot dress, on 4 May, something he can only have achieved by copying an image that existed beforehand (on missing person leaflets being distributed in Praia da Luz as it happens). No other explanation is possible.

For whatever reason, the data in relation to Luis Forra's initial efforts regarding the McCann disappearance, and represented at EPA, are TOTALLY UNRELIABLE. Being hoovered up by EXIF, or whatever other analytical tool does not camouflage the fact.

The safer conclusion by far therefore is not that 'Luis Forra took the (original) photograph on 5 May' but that he registered a COPY of an original with the agency (EPA) on some indeterminate date, the original of course being in existence already. REST SNIPPED


Martin Roberts said...

Nuala @00:19

Not another one!

Have you read my explanation above, or do you think 'validity' is like turning up at Wimbledon without a ticket and expecting to be given a seat because you've 'come a long way'?

Denise became gratuitously obnoxious once it was pointed out to her that the information she had unearthed was unreliable. She even produced her own evidence of that (Read the photo caption for yourself: "Photo released by Portuguese police 4th May 2007 of the three year old British girl Madeleine McCann...blah, blah EPA/LUIS FORRA EDITORIAL USE ONLY").

She has since been quite full of herself as having 'proved' that Forra took the photograph in question, for the PJ no less, without giving a moment's thought to the obvious - that NO police force would invite a freelance paparazzo to record EVIDENCE for them.

If you're that concerned with getting at the truth, perhaps you, Denise, and whoever it is who signs themselves as 'Pseudo Nym', should stop being irrational and look more carefully before you leap in future.


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

Martin Roberts said...

Tony Bennett has commented elsewhere that I 'claim to have solved the 'tea stain' riddle', when I made no such claim. I did not even use the words!

However, maybe, just maybe, we've been staring all this time at the real answer to what that 'tea-stain' nonsense was about. Maybe the stain wasn't tea (or blood, or other DNA laden fluid) but INK.

If you plan to photograph and display a pair of pyjamas you propose to call Amelie's, the world won't be terribly convinced if they can read 'Maddie' across the front of them!

Now that we can be reasonably sure the McCanns were responsible for the pyjama photographs and, whether by proxy or on their own initiative, planned the media exposure, there would have been every reason for seeking to wash out an inappropriate name stencilled on the t-shirt (in just about the position supposedly occupied by a large brown stain).

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

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Martin Roberts said...

   Tony Bennett has commented elsewhere that I 'claim to have solved the 'tea stain' riddle', when I made no such claim. I did not even use the words!

   However, maybe, just maybe, we've been staring all this time at the real answer to what that 'tea-stain' nonsense was about. Maybe the stain wasn't tea (or blood, or other DNA laden fluid) but INK.

   If you plan to photograph and display a pair of pyjamas you propose to call Amelie's, the world won't be terribly convinced if they can read 'Maddie' across the front of them!

   Now that we can be reasonably sure the McCanns were responsible for the pyjama photographs and, whether by proxy or on their own initiative, planned the media exposure, there would have been every reason for seeking to wash out an inappropriate name stencilled on the t-shirt (in just about the position supposedly occupied by a large brown stain).

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

Oh well, maybe I should have said that Martin Roberts 'nearly solved the tea stain riddle'.

But maybe he has now.

His new 'solution' is very interesting

But why would you write 'Maddie' on the front of Maddie's pyjama's in INK, especially when they didn't call her Maddie? Why not just write 'Maddie' on the inside label rather than spoil the material with ink?

Wouldn't the size of the jammies tell Kate that they were Maddie's jammies? 

If Amelie and Maddie had the same jammies they would be different sizes.  Amelie could obviously tell the difference.

Confused.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Martin Roberts said...

   Tony Bennett has commented elsewhere that I 'claim to have solved the 'tea stain' riddle', when I made no such claim. I did not even use the words!

   However, maybe, just maybe, we've been staring all this time at the real answer to what that 'tea-stain' nonsense was about. Maybe the stain wasn't tea (or blood, or other DNA laden fluid) but INK.

   If you plan to photograph and display a pair of pyjamas you propose to call Amelie's, the world won't be terribly convinced if they can read 'Maddie' across the front of them!

   Now that we can be reasonably sure the McCanns were responsible for the pyjama photographs and, whether by proxy or on their own initiative, planned the media exposure, there would have been every reason for seeking to wash out an inappropriate name stencilled on the t-shirt (in just about the position supposedly occupied by a large brown stain).

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

Oh well, maybe I should have said that Martin Roberts 'nearly solved the tea stain riddle'.

But maybe he has now.

His new 'solution' is very interesting

As mentioned by another poster, it does look like an A and DD  is visible. 
Rather than "ink" is it not more likely that "sew on" or "iron on" letters were used to personalise the pajamas?

Perhaps this is the remaining outline after their removal, and the "tea" was used stain the area, to hide colour fading where the letters once resided.

I think this debate is entering ‘wishful thinking’ land.
 
If you go back to the Press Association attributed photo on the first page of this thread there is no sign of these ‘ghost images’.
 
They appear on the EPA photos and extend both above and below ‘ Sleepy Eeyeore’, with at least four rows of writing below and I suggest would have become introduced during a copying process, from another document, rather than by design.
 
The picture from the Daily Mail on 10^th May 2007 shows this same ghost imaging but the letters above eeyore look more like ‘ALMTYN’ or 'ALKT' as suggested above.
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The 'identical' EPA photo, with the same loose threads, has exactly the same ghosting, but it does look like 'ADD' rather than 'ALMTYN'.

Someone playing games maybe?

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

JRP wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Martin Roberts said...

   Tony Bennett has commented elsewhere that I 'claim to have solved the 'tea stain' riddle', when I made no such claim. I did not even use the words!

   However, maybe, just maybe, we've been staring all this time at the real answer to what that 'tea-stain' nonsense was about. Maybe the stain wasn't tea (or blood, or other DNA laden fluid) but INK.

   If you plan to photograph and display a pair of pyjamas you propose to call Amelie's, the world won't be terribly convinced if they can read 'Maddie' across the front of them!

   Now that we can be reasonably sure the McCanns were responsible for the pyjama photographs and, whether by proxy or on their own initiative, planned the media exposure, there would have been every reason for seeking to wash out an inappropriate name stencilled on the t-shirt (in just about the position supposedly occupied by a large brown stain).

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

Oh well, maybe I should have said that Martin Roberts 'nearly solved the tea stain riddle'.

But maybe he has now.

His new 'solution' is very interesting

As mentioned by another poster, it does look like an A and DD  is visible. 
Rather than "ink" is it not more likely that "sew on" or "iron on" letters were used to personalise the pajamas?

Perhaps this is the remaining outline after their removal, and the "tea" was used stain the area, to hide colour fading where the letters once resided.

But why go to all that trouble? Maddie was supposed to have been abducted in her jammies so it's a bit stupid to go to all that trouble to disguise the stain and take a photograph. Why not just throw them away as they were supposed to have been abducted along with Maddie anyway?

Did Kate take a photo of Amelie's jammies or just Maddie's?

Still confused.

Seems the high quality photo was whooshed, maybe because I linked it from this board?

April28th wrote:Seems the high quality photo was whooshed, maybe because I linked it from this board?

Whooshed from where?

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

‘Someone playing games maybe?’
   
Alternative explanation (Occam’s Razor) is that when Luis Forra took his photo of the photo, as the ghosting was so faint anyway, his camera picked up what it could, for whatever reason, light, contrast etc and when printed we now get what looks more like ‘ADD’, which of course suits the 'it must have said Maddie' theorists.

I don't know about anyone else but I find the whole pyjama stuff a load of nonsense - much like the Stevo stuff on Wayback.

aquila wrote:I don't know about anyone else but I find the whole pyjama stuff a load of nonsense - much like the Stevo stuff on Wayback.

I think we need more respect for Dr Martin Roberts' research and analytical skills.

Look at:

* Not knowing how the washing machine works - calling out the maintenance people?

* Washing Maddie's pyjamas on Thursday because there was a 'tea stain'?

* Amelie saying: 'Maddie's jammies. Where's Maddie?'

* Sagresman, Tannerman, Smithman and Crecheman all eager to describe whitish/pinkish pyjamas in detail?    

These and other 'pyjama issues' are issues that surely deserve probing in depth, as Dr Roberts has done.

The only concession I would make is that there could perhaps be a clearer presentation of the bits of disparate information that Dr Roberts has put together. 

That might better enable people to decide whether or not 'the whole pyjama stuff is a load of nonsense'.

Just thinking of how I used to pass clothes from one kid to the smaller one and get another size for first one, and even get them a size bigger.  Could be Amelie got Maddie's, then Maddie got larger size.   Both could have been in use at same time and both girls could have had same pyjamas on that night. Can't see Sean in same coloured though, Whow could he have been wearing the red T shirt?  Just a thought.  joyce1938

aquila wrote:I don't know about anyone else but I find the whole pyjama stuff a load of nonsense - much like the Stevo stuff on Wayback.

I do too, aquila !

Hope its ok to post this here. I pinched it from Himself's blog, but she's got some good points and some good links.



Syn0nymph said...
For heavens sake, you really are conspiracy nuts. The photo is still there on EPA:

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

The EXIF data is also still there when run through Jeffrey's Exif Viewer:

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

Just one pair of pyjamas taken for Madeleine? Do you not read your own blog posts you two? Clearly not, or maybe you just conveniently forgot that you had previously posted articles showing that Madeleine also had a pair of long sleeved Barbie pyjamas in PDL.

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

Did you forget also this article from the Telegraph?

'The McCanns still cling to the hope that their daughter is still in Portugal, which is why they intend to keep their base in the country. And when they moved to an apartment near to the one from which Madeleine was abducted, they unpacked their missing daughter's clothes, too, laying out her pyjamas on what would have been her bed.'

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

And this from The Mail:

'..she tells of how windy it was, and says she kept imagining how cold Madeleine would be in her short-sleeved Eeyore pyjamas, and wishing she’d had her warmer Barbie pyjamas on.'

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

And this from The Mirror:

'It is believed the entire Portuguese case rests on DNA evidence from body fluids which allegedly suggests that Madeleine's corpse was carried in the boot of the McCanns' hired Renault Scenic.

But the McCanns say the fluids probably came from Madeleine's unwashed pyjamas and sandals which were carried in the boot when the family was moving apartments.'

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

Martin Roberts posted in very blog:

'Then there's John McCann's jocular little reference to Kate's dressing her younger daughter in Madeleine's pyjamas, whereupon the toddler says, 'Maddie's jammies'.

Very touching. But, for a barely two-year-old to recognise 'Maddie's jammies', there had to be something distinctly recognisable about them, which there would not have been if the only difference was a v. small one of size, plus a missing button!

No regular two-year-old would be so astute as to say, "Maddies jammies", while thinking, 'I know, because mine have a button - hers do not.

Common sense says that Amelie will have said what she said because the pyjamas that Kate McCann dressed her in were the Barbie pyjamas, NOT the Eeyore ones that were identical to her own apart from the button. Sheesh. Granted, I do find it odd that Kate McCann would want to put them on Amelie but hey ho.

And yes Mr Roberts, I am reaching out to Mr Forra regarding the pyjama photo. My email to him is currently being translated into Portuguese by a friend before I send it to him :)

I don't expect that my post will last for long on this blog as it is clear that the blog owner will not allow any comment that goes against anything that does not fit with her idea of truth so I will be doing a blog post of my own in the forseeable future :)

I am a died in the wool 'anti' Hate that phrase to be honest, prefer pro Madeleine and as I previously said on this blog I don't doubt for a second that there is more to all this than meets the eye but I will not stand by whilst misinformation is bandied about. Ohh but the blog owner deleted all my previous comments didn't she?


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

@GGS
I don't think Syn does make some relevant points, she assumes Amelie is identifying the Barbie pj's and that both her and Maddie have the same Eeyore ones.

HKP wrote:@GGS
I don't think Syn does make some relevant points, she assumes Amelie is identifying the Barbie pj's and that both her and Maddie have the same Eeyore ones.

'Syn0nymph', or Denise Thomson as she is better known, has a somewhat uneven track record as far as I'm concerned on the Madeleine McCann case. She was a member here back in 2012 and then rejoined all of a sudden a year ago - and joined in passionately on the 'Wayback Machine' debate. She and a poster called 'Nuala', it will be recalled, joined at the same time and very robustly claimed that Steve Marsden and Isabelle McFadden had got hold of completely the wrong end of the stick by suggesting that a 'Madeleine McCann' page had been created by CEOP on Monday 30 April, three days before Madeleine was reported missing.

Syn0nymph/Syn and Nuala were backed by HideHo who similarly declared that Marsden and McFadden were talking nonsense about 'Wayback'. It was very hard for those of us who are not 'tecchies' to work out who was right and who was wrong. In the end, I had to take Marsden's case as 'not proven'.

Syn0nymph meanwhile is perhaps best known for posting some very wild claims about CEOP and Gerry McCann which she has never come anywhere near to substantiating.  

But back on the main topic, I think perhaps Martin Roberts may have over-complicated things in his original 'pyjamas' post, because his main thesis can be put simply like this:

Why would you:
a) talk about a small tea stain on your daughter's pyjamas,
b) why would you then, on the day before your last full day of the holiday, go to the trouble of actually washing them, and
c) then why would you go to the extra trouble (as Roberts explains) of taking two separate photographs of them, laid out against the very same blue hessian-style upholstered blue sofa covers as found in the McCanns' apartment?

If Syn0nymph/Syn/Thomson has answered that point satisfactorily, I might be inclined to read the rest of what she says on the subject of the pyjamas.

April28th wrote:The inference is that the pyjamas represented as Amelie's were in fact Maddie's, which would mean that she wasn't wearing them, which would mean she's no longer with us.

Tony - I think this is the point.