Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'

Besides which the washing machine was fixed on the monday (1st). I really think this is an example of Kate snubbing the PJ. If the intention ever was to make them suspect the pyjamas/stain, it was only as a diversionary tactic from the wrong narrative evolving.

Martin Roberts said:

The question I wish earnestly to raise in your minds is this:

How would you explain someone taking photographs of pyjamas belonging to (or resembling those of) their daughter hours BEFORE the 'discovery' of said daughter's disappearance, when the photographs can have served no purpose other than to support the search for the missing child?

Clairvoyance is not an option. "

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Martin Roberts said:

The question I wish earnestly to raise in your minds is this:

How would you explain someone taking photographs of pyjamas belonging to (or resembling those of) their daughter hours BEFORE the 'discovery' of said daughter's disappearance, when the photographs can have served no purpose other than to support the search for the missing child?

Clairvoyance is not an option. "

Photographs such as these.
1) Forensic photograph of couch in apartment 5A
2)Pyjamas belonging to the Mcca's

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

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Martin Roberts said:

The question I wish earnestly to raise in your minds is this:

How would you explain someone taking photographs of pyjamas belonging to (or resembling those of) their daughter hours BEFORE the 'discovery' of said daughter's disappearance, when the photographs can have served no purpose other than to support the search for the missing child?

Clairvoyance is not an option. "

Disregarding the timing of the photographs for a minute...............it would reinforce the message of a night time abduction  if the pyjamas were on constant display. However why would you need to do this if the abduction scenario was true? Gilding the lily a bit .  Personally I think the pyjamas photo was out there for people to link to the Tanner and Smithman sighting ...........................which makes me doubt Mr Smith even more. Tanner has always been  a lost cause!
To photograph the pyjamas before the event if that was the case speaks of premeditation and I reckon the tea stain was just her  excuse to explain washing  them. It could have been there for months.

kaz wrote:

Personally I think the pyjamas photo was out there for people to link to the Tanner and Smithman sighting...which makes me doubt Mr Smith even more.

Amen.

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote: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.]

Both Google.Gaspar.Statementas and Get'emGoncalo have drawn attention on this thread to Denise Thomson/sy0nymph's claims. She denounces Martin Roberts' article on the pjyamas. It is a brave lady who challenges Dr Martin Roberts' meticulous and much-respected research, as she has done.

Her case against Dr Roberts has two planks:

Plank 1: A photojournalist called Luis Forra took the photo of Madeleine's pyjamas - on a background of blue hessian-style upholstery - on Saturday 5 May - so it couldn't have been taken by the McCanns themselves - and 

Plank 2: Madeleine had two very different styles of pyjamas with her on the holiday - a long-sleeved and a short-sleeved.

REPLY: 

To Plank 1: Luis Forra's agency credits Forra with taking a photo of PJ chief Olegario Sousa whilst he was speaking at a press conference on Thursday 10 May. However, the image itself is recorded as having been created on Saturday 5 May. So there is a major inaccuracy here. We can't rely on what his agency says. So in the case of the photo of the pyjamas, did he actually take it on 5 May, or in fact did he take it at all?

Yet another possibility is that he took a photograph of a pyjamas photograph that had in fact been taken by the McCanns (as Dr Roberts explains, with reasons). That is a common device by photojournalists. So Denise has been very hasty in insisting that the statements of Luis Forra and his agency prove that Dr Roberts is wrong.

There is yet one more point to consider. Quite a large chunk of Richard Hall's third documentary gives chapter and verse on how Dr Gerald McCann sat down with cousin Michael Wright and top PR man from Bell Pottinger between 4 and 8 May to sift through the McCanns' SD camera cards, deleting here, cropping there, editing everywhere. If the McCanns had taken photos of Madeleine's pyjamas, we can be pretty certain that they did not make it onto the two CD compilations of the photos that were handed in by them to the PJ on Wednesday 9 May. What had the three of them deleted??  

To Plank 2: All the statements quoted by Denise Thomson which were made by Dr Kate McCann and quoted in the British press about Maddie having two different sets of pyjamas for that week's holiday are made by her. But what corroboration is there for them?

Tony Bennett wrote:Both Google.Gaspar.Statementas and Get'emGoncalo have drawn attention on this thread to Denise Thomson/sy0nymph's claims. She denounces Martin Roberts' article on the pjyamas. It is a brave lady who challenges Dr Martin Roberts' meticulous and much-respected research, as she has done.

Yep. That's because there seems to be two sides of the very interesting, important debate going on over there.

I've also drawn more attention to Martin Roberts' debunking of Syn0nymph's claims.

It's called balance.

I hope that's ok?

On one of the links Syn posted, regarding the pyjama photo on the blue background, there is reference to epa.eu which is the European Press Photo Agency. On searching the agancy for Luis Forra/Madeleine McCann the photo is listed as being uploaded on 5 May and credited to Forra.

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

I can't at this moment think why he might have taken a photo of a photo, although I suppose it is feasible. It seems implausible that the PJ wouldn't have taken the pyjamas immediately and had them forensically checked.

I agree that the photo was released, a week later, for reasons other than helping to find a missing little girl.

I respect Dr Roberts' insight and knowledge. Equally, Syn (Denise Thomson), has supplied a lot of detailed (insider) info regarding Martin Grime and Eddie/Keela which I personally found very enlightening. Infact, I did ask her about 5J in the past but can't find the thread - perhaps someone can remember it. 

Extracting the truth is a laborious business.

It is likely that a photo journalist would visit a scene with the intent to capture images of general interest, for sale by an agency to news outlets.
He would dwell on the action type shots of police at work, or police in deep discussion, rather than combing the scene for evidence of clothing. That's not his job, the police would have their own trained forensic photographers. 

Rather than it being a photo of a photo, perhaps it was gifted to him on a CD as part of the Mc's camera editing escapade?
Perhaps that explains the lack of Exit data on the link to Jeffreys exif website?

Strange!

The Telegraph used the photograph on 10^th May 2007 in the following article:
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
which appeared without the ‘ghost’ writing and is attributed to the Press Association.
 
This photo then develops the ghosting and accreditation to EPA/Forra and is clearly a copy of another photo. Quite who did take it, I suspect we will never know, but the ‘cleaner’ PA photo is obviously the earlier version.
 
Unfortunately, we are not able to access the PA photo-archive without membership and are therefore unable to pull up their full accreditation details.
 
It is possible that Forra could have been accredited there as well, but if that was the case, why would he post a poorer quality copy on the EPA site and the Roberts article comments do suggest that there is evidence of some ‘dodgy dealing’ with other Forra-attributed photos.
 
For the conspirationalists however, the EPA photo has not been ‘whooshed’ and can be found on the epa.eu site if you search under the number.
 
01005211
Author
LUIS FORRA
Description
epa01005211 Pyjama equal to the one Madeleine McCann, the three year old British child, who went missing last week in the Ocean Club village of Praia da Luz, is displayed by the police, Portimao, Portugal, 10 May 2007. EPA/LUIS FORRA

 Ponderings On Those Famous Pajamas And That Stain

                                                    Something to ponder.

Clothes based on a specific age range can be a bit hit and miss as children rarely follow a sizing norm.
As Martin rightly points out, when it comes to buying clothes for children, parents buy to fit and allow for a little extra growing room in order that the child gets to wear it for more than a couple of weeks.More so when money is a bit tight

Some may be wearing clothes are are a couple of ages bigger, IE, a 3 year old wearing clothes meant for a 5 year old or a 3 year old wearing clothes meant for a 2 year old.
Clothes sizes can also vary due to type of material, how they are cut (as with adult clothes some can be cut giving a generous size and others can be a smaller size and less forgiving.
M&S are generous in their cuts so a size 14 lady can perhaps get into a a size 12 or even a 10 (very good and a happy lady) whereas, a designer item could be skimpy on the cut and a a size 14 lady would need an 18.(very bad and an unhappy lady)
These things matter to us ladies.



According to kate's statement

10-PROCESSO 10 VOLUME Xa (Pages 2539 to 2551)
Kate Marie Healy's statement 06/09/07 @ 3.00pm

TRANSLATIONS BY CARMERINA32

KATE MARIE HEALY ' STATEMENT
(from DVD)

September 6/2007 3pm at Portimao

On May 3 they all woke between 7;30 and 8:00 AM; doesn't know who woke first. They washed the children and had breakfast at the apartment between 08:00 and 08:30 AM. Food bought by her and Gerry at Baptista supermarket. Previously they'd had breakfast at the Millenium, but as it was so far they'd decided to have breakfast at the apartment. During breakfast the 'crying episode', already described, took place. She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning. She hung it to dry on a small stand, and it was dry by the afternoon. Madeleine sometimes drank tea; the stain did not appear during breakfast, maybe it happened another day, as Madeleine did not have tea the previous night and the stain was dry.

The important little bit is this

During breakfast the 'crying episode', already described, took place. She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning.
Now this was allegedly what happened during breakfast may 3rd.

Looking at the picture of the pajamas at the top of this post, there is a clear stain on the neck of the pajama top which could be from spilled tea.
On the front of the neck in line with the gap at the back of the collar

Now, as pointed out above, why would someone, nay anyone, take a photograph of a pair of pajamas showing a 'tea stain'
What parent sees a stain on the clothing of their child and decides
"Oh i must photograph it for posterity.
Another one for the family album"

Unless it is something spectacular perhaps forming the face of a dead family member, Jesus or anything else relating to people, known as face pareidolia
Perhaps she took the photo in order to make a claim on a faulty item and demanding a refund, although why not take said item back to the store on discovering the stain on arrival at home?

There is simply no reason to take a photo given the above scenarios.

On the other hand, there is ample reason to take a photo if it will later be presented as an exhibit to the media and public.
There is ample reason to take a photo if there is an intent to deceive.

Why though would innocent parents go through all the rigmarole if they had no involvement in the disappearance' of their daughter?
The thought wouldn't even cross their mind.

Guilty people however do things like this to either show evidence they could not have done such a crime, to mislead those investigating the alleged crime, to muddy the waters.
They would do so to preempt something else.

It could be claimed that these were not in fact Maddie's rather they were Amelie's.

How then would both Maddie and Amelie have tea stains on their pajama tops?

Kate told us that on the morning of may 3rd she noticed a tea stain on Maddie's pajama top.

She makes no mention of a similar stain being on Amelie's top.
However, kate  tells us "these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken."

Now, if kate is telling the truth, and i have to assume she is,

How could they be Maddie's since she would have been wearing them when 'abducted'.

If Maddie had been wearing a different pair of pajamas then the question would not have arisen since kate and gerry would be holding up a different pair of pajamas, the ones similar/identical to the ones Maddie was wearing when she was 'abducted'

If these were Maddie's why were they not 'abducted' along with Maddie since she was wearing them?

Did the alleged abductor waste precious seconds taking her pajamas off?
If so, where were they located when kate 'discovered' Maddie was missing?
How come no one noticed these pajamas lying in situ?
How come these were not handed over as evidence to the PJ who could then do all the usual forensic tests to find out what happened and perhaps who did it?

Were these actually abducted and the pink blanket left behind and said abductor managed to sneak back into the apartment which, presumably would be filled with police, the family and anyone else remotely involved, remove Maddie's pink blanket and return her pajamas all without being seen, heard or leaving any evidence of their existence?

Out of their own mouths comes ample evidence that Maddie is dead.
They knew she was dead from the get go of the 'alleged abduction.
They were involved in her death as were possibly one or more of the tapas men since no mention has been made of the ladies doing the alleged checks on the children.
This also means they and at least one or more of the tapas 7 took action to conceal Maddie's body and then file a false police report.

In the following years, the mccanns and chums have also committed fraud on a grand scale in relation to the fund and also to claiming and winning damages against various media.

Keep talking chums, the more you speak the more you leak.

The more you leak, the closer the PJ will be to nailing your sorry asses for homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report.

The PJ may also press charges against the group and the various family members who showed up and made full use of the amenities at little to no cost to themselves, obtaining money and services by deception.

In the meantime SY would, and should go ahead with prosecuting the mccanns and chums as well as clarrie for fraud, obtaining money and services by deception and anything else to do with the fund.
Those involved in creating the fund (seriously £37000?)and running it.

I would also be interested to know if the States could also join in the fun and charge them with wire fraud, money donated to them via their website (darn that $ PayPal button
I then wonder that, when the stuff hits the fan and the tapas 6 (I don't think Diane Webster was awarded damages) are facing prosecution regarding the damages and are required to pay it all back along with interest and court costs, if they will demand the mccanns return the money the group so generously donated to the fund, in order to make their own repayments along with court costs etc.

Could it get to a stage where the mccanns get sued by the tapas 7, their former alibis, allies and friends?
Could it then end up with the mccanns suing the tapas7?

Could clarrie decide he is missing out and sue the mccanns?

Could the mccanns then end up suing clarrie for dropping them right in it when he opened mouth and inserted feet?

It could get quite interesting as well as messy once the infighting and blame game starts.

"So these are actually, apart from the size and the button on the back which Madeleine's doesn't have, these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken."
So is used to explain why something is/happened.
It answers the unasked question the subject expects will be asked.

Kate slips up here by not telling us these are identical or similar to the pyjamas Maddie was wearing, she instead tells us the pyjamas are the ones Maddie was wearing when allegedly abducted.
She uses the word actually which is a word indicating comparison between 2 or more items.

IE, I like vanilla ice cream, actually i like chocolate more.

This is also a sensitive statement since she uses the word actually twice.

The problem kate has is she twice tells us these are Maddie's pajamas whilst at the same time contradicting herself and telling us apart from the size and the button on the back.

As has been rightly pointed out, how can these be the pajamas Maddie was wearing when she was abducted when, presumably, said self same pajamas would have been abducted along with Maddie since she was wearing them.

Either Maddie was wearing them the night she was allegedly abducted, in which case:
How did the mccanns come across her pajamas?
When did they come across them?
Where did they find them?
Why were they not immediately handed to the PJ for testing and a fingertip search of the area conducted?

Or.
Kate and gerry removed the pajamas from Maddie's corpse before disposing of her.

Or kate and gerry are outright lying about what Maddie was wearing that night, in which case why the need to lie about something trivial unless. of course, there is something which was seen or found that would incriminate them.

With the mccanns it is always look over there not here, or look over here not over there.

There is a need to distract.

As an aside.

Eddie reacted to a child's red t shirt.
WHY would a child's t shirt be contaminated with cadaverine?

More importantly, HOW could a child's t shirt be contaminated by cadaverine?

Cross contamination perhaps if it was packed with other clothing (kate's pants) contaminated with cadaverine.

Why then only that item, along with kate's pants and no other items in the case?

Did kate take the t shirt to work with her alongside cuddlecat and got contaminated the same way that cuddlecat did  and kate's pants (allegedly according to sue healy)

The obvious conclusion is that the t shirt came into direct contact with the cadaver.
Maddie's lifeless body.
Either Maddie injured herself and died accidentally and for whatever reason happened to land on said t shirt or, and i am taking a big leap of judgement here, Maddie was actually wearing said T shirt.
A T shirt then later claimed to belong to Sean perhaps, or it was Sean's and Maddie at some point  was wearing it.

Why though was it removed from Maddie's corpse?
Was she wearing it as a pajama top perhaps?
Or, more likely, was she wearing it during the day and died due to nefarious deeds of a dastardly nature?
Since the claim Maddie was abducted at night from her bed, questions would be asked why she was wearing a t shirt as opposed to pajamas?
Yes, they could have claimed she liked it so much she wore it at night, however, muddled and panicked thinking may have been they have to show she died at night, thus claiming she was wearing pajamas.

T shirt is day wear, Pajamas are night wear

It probably made sense to them at the time.
Posted by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Maybe the large brown stain was vomit?

Also, why would a parent buy two of their children the same PJs?
Wouldn’t they prefer to have different ones, to be individual? Wouldn’t that make it easier and save time for a parent to be able to know instantly what belongs to who when dressing / putting clothing away?

And if you bought a set of PJs for your eldest kid, wouldn’t you be thinking in the back of your mind that the younger child might get these later on as a hand me down? So to me it makes more sense that there was only ever one set.

Just to say  I had 3 boys ,clothes were handed on at all times.maybe maddie had p Js and twin had same ,then got handed down ,so whether they were one set or the other ,we shall never know .joycw1938

While I still remain very suspicious of the whole Madeline abduction claim and agree the pyjamas do look rather large for Amelia, it is often the case that sisters will have the same pattern clothes and Madeline could have had two similar pattern sets of pyjamas anyway. If the pyjamas were washed, as Kate claimed, then Maddy would have had to have had  something else to sleep in. In my experience, mums usually pack more than enough for a holiday as they don't want to be spending their time washing stuff while there so would have packed ample changes of day and night clothes for all the children.

Sometimes shops like Tesco sell them in packs of two anyway but I'm don't know if that is the case with M&S. They could have also been in possession of second hand pyjamas passed down by friends; even wealthy professional people are not obverse to doing that.

So I'm not convinced that Kate showing a pair of pyjamas similar or identical to the ones she claims Maddy was wearing when 'abducted' is as important a detail to help towards proving the McCann's guilt in any way, as is claimed to be here. The police always want a description of the last outfit someone who  has disappeared is wearing so if the parents  had something that looked the same it would be prudent to show it to help with the search.  I am suspicious about tea stains being on a child's pyjamas though as I don't know any 3 year olds who drink tea unless it was an adult who put their cup down on top of them accidently.

Although the article here makes some good points, I think they are other more serious discrepancies in the McCann's story and others' evidence which is more important to look at in detail than 'pyjama gate'.

The forum-owner originally posted up Dr Martin Roberts' article in March 2016. The article 'A Nightwear Job' by Dr Martin Roberts formed part of a series of articles by Nigel Moore (owner of the much-loved, but sadly no more, 'mccannfiles' website) - and Dr Roberts, which all explored various very puzzling aspects relating to the saga of Madeleine's pyjamas.

Since then, there have been over 100 replies on this thread, the vast majority of them praising the work of both Nigel Moore and Dr Martin Roberts.    

Indeed, elsewhere on the forum, I believe the forum-owner has collected for us either the majority of, or perhaps all, of Dr Roberts' articles, all of which have been praised by many Madeleine McCann followers on CMOMM and elsewhere for their detailed, referenced research.

Recently the subject of Madeleine's pyjamas was resurrected on the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] hashtag on Twitter.

I responded by referring the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] tag to Dr Roberts' article, 'A Nightwear Job'.

This was met with a tide of abuse from former member here Benjamin Thompson, better known to us as persistent forum troll 'Andrew', and who operates the Twitter usernames 'TheBunnyReturns' and 'AndyFish19' - with his small coterie of followers joining in with the absue.  (Others, though, I'm, pleased to say, retweeted and 'liked' my tweets).

Since then, three individuals have posted an article: 'Bananas for pyjamas - another McCann myth' on the 'Laid Bare' blog, which Benjamin Thompson promotes as 'his' blog, but is actually run and written by his long-time friend Denise Thomson, known to some here as Syn0nymph'.

This blog article, which carefully avoids some of the main facts and arguments used by Dr Martin Roberts to support his case, is a merciless and bitter attack primarily against myself but also Dr Martin Roberts and everybody who agrees with his article. The same people who wrote the article not only routinely attack Dr Marin Roberts and myself, but also CMOMM in general and the forum-owner and Lizzy 'Hideho' in particular.     

I hesitate to even mention the article, but it is there, and I daresay some people will read it and believe that it is a well-researched rebuttal of what Dr Martin Roberts says.

The article on the Laid Bare blog admits to being written by three people:

Benjamin Thompson
Denise Thomson and
'NotTextusa'.

Many have thought that 'NotTextusa' is Denise Thomson. I do not know.

But there is a very curious reference in the article which comes when the authors actually quote from the 'NotTextusa' blog. The authors take pains to point out that the 'style' of their article is reminiscent of 'NotTextusa', but add that Denise Thomson and 'NotTextusa' are NOT the same person.  I wonder?

In terms of the content of the Laid Bare article, I intend in due course to make a detailed reply to it.

However, I make two important preliminary observation on the Laid Bare article, namely these:

1.  Its entire basis is to accept as gospel all the statements that the McCanns have ever made about Madeleine's and Amelie's pyjamas, and

2.  They ignore one the facts that Dr Martin Roberts' uses to make one of his key points - namely that (1) the photo of what were initially said to be 'Madeleine's pyjamas', clearly taken against a blue, hessian-style background and (2) the pyjamas actually held up by the McCanns at two press conferences on 4 and 6 June, BOTH have that tell-tale wisp of curly white cotton at the bottom of one of the two trousers legs, indicating that the pyjamas are therefore one and the same. 

=========== 

But my prime purpose in making this post is to invite members old and new to read/re-read the OP on this thread, where Dr Martin Roberts sets out his full case on 'Maddie's jammies'.

I  have always regarded Dr. Martin Robert's article "A nightwear job" as compelling reading. For me, the crux point of this article was the fact that the pyjamas alleged to belong to Amelie would have to have been bought in the knowledge that Amelie would not be big enough to wear them for  somewhere between 12 - 18 months after the purchase! At the same time, we are asked to believe, Kate purchased an identical pair for Madeleine which would fit her immediately. While not impossible, this would be unusual if true. The level of wear and tear evident on the pyjamas shown at press conferences (allegedly Amelie's) seemed consistent with them having been in use for quite some time, yet Amelie had only turned the age to attempt wear them (and they would still have been very large for her) two months before the "abduction".
As Tony pointed out, the pyjamas in the photograph have identical fray patterns to those photographed, so it is logical to assume they are indeed the ones photographed against the blue hessian background. Since these photos did not come from the P J it would appear they were taken by the McCanns. Again, this is odd behaviour. The sensible behaviour for parents of an abducted child to pursue would be to have handed over those pyjamas to the P.J.. This would have saved the latter the trouble of having to contact M&S in the U.K. to try and track down replicas. 
I don't necessarily believe that John McCann's story of Amelie remarking on the pyjamas should be taken too seriously - she could have been referring to a second pair belonging to Madeleine or, more likely IMO, the comment was an invention on his part to help create sympathy for the McCanns. However, this, IMO, does not detract from the more important points - we are being asked to believe that Kate McCann purchased Eeyore pyjamas for Madeleine to wear immediately, and at the same time purchased an identical pair for her younger daughter which would not fit her for another year and a half. We are also faced with the mystery of why the McCanns photographed Amelie's well-worn pyjamas (irrespective of where or when - Dr Roberts suggests in 5A and on the morning of May 3rd) instead of handing over these to the P.J. to assist the investigation.

Phoebe wrote:
I don't necessarily believe that John McCann's story of Amelie remarking on the pyjamas should be taken too seriously - she could have been referring to a second pair belonging to Madeleine or, more likely IMO, the comment was an invention on his part to help create sympathy for the McCanns. However, this, IMO, does not detract from the more important points - we are being asked to believe that Kate McCann purchased Eeyore pyjamas for Madeleine to wear immediately, and at the same time purchased an identical pair for her younger daughter which would not fit her for another year and a half. We are also faced with the mystery of why the McCanns photographed Amelie's well-worn pyjamas (irrespective of where or when - Dr Roberts suggests in 5A and on the morning of May 3rd) instead of handing over these to the P.J. to assist the investigation.

@ Phoebe    Hi, and I agree with your very pertinent observations above in the first two paragraphs of your post and most of what you say in the third paragraph (above). 

I just wanted to add some observations on the bolded bits above. 

First, I do not put huge weight on the reported comment of Amelie: "Maddies's jammies. Where is Maddie?' However, I do put some weight on it for the following reasons:

1. There is no obvious reason for doubting that the incident occurred exactly as John McCann reported it

2.  IIRC it just came out of John McCann's mouth naturally as he was talking to someone (if Verdi or anyone else has the link to this report, it would be very helpful). In other words, it was NOT part of some carefully crafted statement, like so much else we have come across in this case

3.  The evidence from Amelie's mouth, reported via John McCann's mouth, harmonises completely with Dr Martin Roberts' analysis of the pyjamas

4.  If we allow ourselves to expand just a little on Amelie's reported words, it is clear that she has seen a pair of pyjamas that she immediately recognises as Maddie's - NOT Amelie's ,and NOT Sean's. She is saying: "Hey! Those are the jammies that Madeleine normally wears. I've not seen Maddie for a few days. Where is she?"

5.  These words: 'Maddie's jammies. Where's Maddie?' could, I suggest, only be uttered if she recognized these pyjamas as Madeleine's and no-one else'. If these were the fabled Eeeyore pyjamas, then these could not have been hers. That really puts paid to the idea that BOTH Amelie AND Madeleine had near-identical Eeyore pyjamas

6.  We then start to consider very unlikely scenarios, such as:

(a)  Madeleine has two identical Eeyore pyjamas on holiday

(b)  All the children had two pairs of pyjamas on holiday

(c)  Kate McCann washed Madeleine's pyjamas on the Thursday morning even though she had a spare pair (!)

(d)  Madeleine had THREE pairs of pyjamas. At a late stage the McCanns brought up the idea that Madeleine also had a pair of Barbie pyjamas on holiday. Later on Kate McCann wistfully explained that one of her first thoughts about Maddie being abducted was that she 'would by cold' because she had her Eeyore pyjamas on and she felt guilty that she had not put the warmer, long-sleeved, Barbie pyjamas on

(e)  This of course was contradicted by Gerry McCann who said the night was so hot that Maddie slept on top of the bed on the evening of 3rd May.

I am not sure when the Barbie pyjamas were first mentioned, if anyone has a link that would be very helpful.

[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.]
British missing girl photo preview 01005211

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

British missing girl photo information

Photographer
LUIS FORRA
Medianumber
01005211
Date Created
05.05.2007
Region
West Europe > Portugal > PORTIMAO
Category
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Title
PORTUGAL BRITISH MISSING GIRL
Headline
British missing girl
Description
epa01005211 Pyjama equal to the one Madeleine McCann, the three year old British child, who went missing last week in the Ocean Club village of Praia da Luz, is displayed by the police, Portimao, Portugal, 10 May 2007. EPA/LUIS FORRA
Credit
EPA
Source
LUSA
Caption Writer
JR/PC/MA PT/JS/TP/AR
Image Size
1440px x 2048px
12,2cm x 17,3cm (300dpi)

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

Forsome reason the image from the European Press Agency refuses to upload so I've knicked this from the UK press..

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

It can be clearly seen in the EPA link provided.

@ Tony Bennett. Hi Tony, I do agree with what you say above but was being cautious since there is no hard proof that  A) Amelie really did make that comment or B) that Madeline did not have a second pair of pyjamas to which Amelie was referring.
 However, if Amelie did indeed comment on the Eeyore pyjamas as being Madeleine's then I do not believe she possessed an identical pair herself at all. I find it hard to believe that a child aged 26 months would note the difference between her own Eeyore pair and an identical pair! If John McCann's story is true ( and referred to the Eeyore pyjamas) then I believe there was only ever one pair of these - Madeleine's. John's comment refers to Kate dressing Amelie in a pair of pyjamas which belonged to her older sister. Logically then, if they were not the Eeyore pair then Madeleine had at least another set of pyjamas on that holiday. If Kate brought more than one pair for her toilet-trained almost 4 year old then surely she would have done the same for her other daughter who was still in nappies and much more likely to have needed a second pair. If Amelie did, herself, have more than one pair of pyjamas why was there a need to resort to using her older sister's!
In any case, I can't find the idea of Kate buying the exact same pair of pyjamas for both daughters and intending to put one pair away for 12- 18 months until the child had grown enough to consider trying to wear them, credible in the least.

I recently read GM's Leverson Inquiry testimony. In it he states that a "very close family friend took it upon himself to release photographs to all the major news outlets during the early hours of May 4th." This image first appears May 5th, is that correct?

Crackfox wrote:I recently read GM's Leverson Inquiry testimony. In it he states that a "very close family friend took it upon himself to release photographs to all the major news outlets during the early hours of May 4th." This image first appears May 5th, is that correct?

REPLY BY TONY BENNETT

If I've understood your question correctly, you are asking when the image of Madeleine's pyjamas (on the blue hessian-style background) first 'appeared', i.e. in the media. The answer to that I think is: around 8 or 9 May, possibly 7 May.

Now, much noise is being made in a couple of other places about the fact that this photo of Madeleine's pyjamas (or the McCanns say they were Amelie's) was CREATED by local photographer Luis Forra on Saturday 5 May. But the fact that a photograph was CREATED on 5 May 2007 does NOT mean it was TAKEN that day.

If we want proof of that, consider the fabled 'Tennis Balls Photo'. The data extracted from the original images show and state that it was CREATED on 5 May 2007 (same as the pyjamas photo).

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

But according to the McCanns, this photo was TAKEN earlier in the week.

Of course it hardly helps the McCanns' case that the Tennis Balls Photo was taken on three different dates by two different people!



.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Crackfox wrote:I recently read GM's Leverson Inquiry testimony. In it he states that a "very close family friend took it upon himself to release photographs to all the major news outlets during the early hours of May 4th." This image first appears May 5th, is that correct?

REPLY BY TONY BENNETT

If I've understood your question correctly, you are asking when the image of Madeleine's pyjamas (on the blue hessian-style background) first 'appeared', i.e. in the media. The answer to that I think is: around 8 or 9 May, possibly 7 May.

Now, much noise is being made in a couple of other places about the fact that this photo of Madeleine's pyjamas (or the McCanns say they were Amelie's) was CREATED by local photographer Luis Forra on Saturday 5 May. But the fact that a photograph was CREATED on 5 May 2007 does NOT mean it was TAKEN that day.

If we want proof of that, consider the fabled 'Tennis Balls Photo'. The data extracted from the original images show and state that it was CREATED on 5 May 2007 (same as the pyjamas photo).

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

But according to the McCanns, this photo was TAKEN earlier in the week.

Of course it hardly helps the McCanns' case that the Tennis Balls Photo was taken on three different dates by two different people!



.

I agree Tony. IMO, 'a close family friend' released a number of images during 'the early hours of May 4th' (as per GM's Leverson testimony) and these images probably included this one, 'picked up' by the IPA on May 5th and then used at later dates. The fact that a Spanish photographer was the first person to use the image, supplied to the IPA does not mean he/she took the photo. Indeed it seems some people are putting two and two together and making five. 

I believe (pure speculation and only opinion)) that the McCanns had a number of images ready for the press. The IPA image clearly shows a large stain, which seems odd and begs the question why would KM go to the trouble of washing tea out of M's pyjamas when no one is going to see them but be quite happy to show the world A's pyjamas complete with large stain. The tea   stain anecdote is so dull that it's inclusion in her book has to have some deeper significance, IMO. 

The images released to the press are so incoherent it doesn't stack up and Dr Roberts' theory makes good sense to me.

Kate McCann tells us that she washed the pyjama top on Thursday morning and that it was dry by that afternoon. Why is it important to specify when it had dried - the clear implication is that it was ready to be worn again that night, otherwise the state of dampness is completely irrelevant. This does not support the notion that Madeleine had another pair of pyjamas with her which could have been used, in which case Amelie would have to have been referring to Madeleine's Eeyore pyjamas (despite Madeleine wearing them when kidnapped!) if she did make that comment.
 The tale of the pyjamas is, IMO, intended to hammer home the version that Madeleine was abducted wearing those pyjamas. Their desperate need to promote this story home smacks of it being untrue. Who in their right mind holds onto an item (which the police need to help their investigation) and takes it to press conferences to hold up for cameras! It was of no use to the public in terms of spotting a kidnapped child. Any abductor would have changed her clothing ASAP. However, the police needed them in case they were found discarded somewhere or to help identify a body which might be found.  Frantic efforts to misinform and mislead methinks!

... Another piece of contextual information which is very relevant IMO is that the PJ suspected that the first images of Madeleine to be circulated during the early searches were pr-prepared and could have been produced in a booth. The McCann's explanation of how these photographs came to be produced, which relies on a convoluted story of a member of staff's boyfriend printing them on his personal computer, has never been properly varified and I believe if Amaral hadn't been taken off the case, this would have been investigated.

Looking at the photo of the pyjamas and the ratio of the leg length to the length from crotch to waist, I would say that these summer style pyjama bottoms would finish just above the knee of a 3 year old child (bermuda short length). Look up childs pyjamas on Google images to see how much longer ankle length pyjama legs are in relation to the body section.

Going with the Mcs/T7 version of events, had MBM been abducted in this design of pyjamas, her legs would have been bare from the knees down with nothing for Jane Tanner to see but skin. Why did the Mcs not say straight away that the child Jane saw being carried couldn't have been Madeleine if Jane had seen ankle length pyjamas as per the id drawing released?