SMITHMAN 10: Is this absolute, 100% proof that the Smiths did not see Gerry McCann carrying away Madeleine at around 10pm on Thursday, 3 May, 2007?

by **Tony Bennett** 15.04.17 14:09

SMITHMAN 10

Is this absolute, 100% proof that the Smiths did not see Gerry McCann carrying away Madeleine at around 10pm on Thursday, 3 May, 2007?

Finally, we seem to have absolute proof that the Smith family from Drogheda did NOT see Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine through the streets of Praia da Luz on the late evening of Thursday 3 May 2017.

It comes in two long papers by Nigel Moore, who ran the former McCannFiles site, and his colleague Dr Martin Roberts.

In short, these two articles purport to tell the story of what really happened to Madeleine’s pyjamas, pictured here:

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

Up till now, few have read and understood the significance of these two brilliant pieces of research.

But now Richard D Hall has made these two papers accessible on film. He has summarised the research by Moore & Roberts in a short, 4½-minute clip on the first of his two latest Madeleine McCann films, ‘Robert Murat’, link here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The sequence about Madeleine’s pyjamas begins at 1 min 0 secs and finishes at 5 mins 30 secs.

To sum up these 4½ minutes:

1 The pyjamas pictured above were the pyjamas that Madeleine wore on holiday

2 They were different from Amelie’s pyjamas

3 Kate McCann washed Madeleine’s pyjamas on the morning of Thursday 3 May, according to her book

4 She (or someone else) then took a photo of Madeleine’s pyjamas, in their apartment

5 That photo was handed to Leicestershire Police by the McCanns (or someone else on their behalf) on or about 8 May

6 The photo was published in many print and TV media on or after 9 May. It was understood to be a ‘stock’ or police photo of that style of pyjamas, but in fact was a photo of Madeleine’s ACTUAL pyjamas

7 Around this time, Amelie was given these pjyamas to put on, and exclaimed: “Maddie’s jammies! Where is Maddie?”

8 On 5 June on Crimewatch and again on 7 June at a press conference in Holland, the McCanns held up Madeleine’s actual pyjamas, but pretended they were Amelie’s.

Nigel Moore & Martin Roberts support the above sequence of events with detailed evidence, showing clearly that the pyjamas photographed in their apartment (before Madeleine was reported missing) were exactly the same ones shown to the world on 5 & 7 June, but which were represented by the McCanns to be Amelie’s.

The McCanns’ account of events is that Madeleine was abducted in her pjyamas. If Nigel Moore & Dr Martin Roberts are correct, her pyjamas were not abducted, and so neither was Madeleine.

THEREFORE any claims by the Smiths that they saw Madeleine in her pyjamas, being carried by Gerry McCann (or anyone else) are clearly false. There are only two reasons therefore to explain the Smiths’ evidence:

A By an amazing coincidence, they saw SOMEONE ELSE carrying ANOTHER CHILD, also dressed in white/pinkish pyjamas, across the streets of Praia da Luz at 10pm on 3 May, whose descriptions matched almost exactly those by Jane Tanner of Tannerman, and by Nuno Lourenco of Wojchiech Krokowski, or

B They fabricated their accounts.

The original articles can be viewed at:

Nigel Moore & Dr Martin Roberts, ‘Washed Up’, 5 January 2011:

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

or

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

or

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

or

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

Dr Martin Roberts, ‘A Nightwear Job’, 9 March 2016:

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

or

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

or

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

Surely, now, those who have up to now believed that the Smiths really did see Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine across the streets of Praia da Luz. just as his wife and friend were raising the alarm, must give up – and abandon their mistaken belief?

I will add a poll.

.

by willowthewisp 15.04.17 14:41

Thank you very much for this article Mr Tony Bennett and for the time you have committed to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann,reported missing by her parents to the Portugal PJ 3 May 2007.

by RosieandSam 15.04.17 15:04

For the record, I don't believe in the Smith sighting. But I have one lingering question:

Why would Martin Smith phone Leicestershire police after he saw the McCanns return to the UK (video of McCanns descending plane and speech on tarmac - each holding a twin) and say that he was 60-80% certain that it was Gerry McCann he saw that night carrying the child in PDL?

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

by Guest 15.04.17 15:09

3 Kate McCann washed Madeleine’s pyjamas on the morning of Thursday 3 May, according to her book

4 She (or someone else) then took a photo of Madeleine’s pyjamas, in their apartment

What is the evidence for claim 4 Tony?

by **Tony Bennett** 15.04.17 15:42

RosieandSam wrote:For the record, I don't believe in the Smith sighting. But I have one lingering question:

Why would Martin Smith phone Leicestershire police after he saw the McCanns return to the UK (video of McCanns descending plane and speech on tarmac - each holding a twin) and say that he was 60-80% certain that it was Gerry McCann he saw that night carrying the child in PDL?

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

@ RosiendSam      First of all, thank you for all your contributions to the forum since joining.

Despite my longstanding interest in the 'Smithman' sighting - ever since that utter travesty of a BBC Crimewatch programme back in 2013 - I cannot give you a coherent answer to that question. It is deeply mysterious, like so much else in this case that is hidden from us.

Martin Smth's actions in this case are very hard to assess.

One observation I would make is that although Martin Smith says he was influenced by the TV news bulletin he viewed on 9 September, he did not actually report his possible identification of Gerry Smith until 20 September - 11 days later. A possible explanation is that someone was persuading him during these 11 days to make up a claim that the man he said he'd seen was Gerry McCann.

This would be consistent with a hypothesis that someone - possibly Murat - put him up to coming up with his original report to the police on 16 May - as many as 13 days after 3 May.

I have previously advanced the view that there could have been were two 'camps' or 'spheres of interest' in this case, the McCann camp and the Murat camp (e.g. 'buyers' snd 'sellers'). Evidence of this comes from the way Jane Tanner, Fiona Payne, Rachael Oldfield and Russell O'Brien all conspired to frame Robert Murat in the days between 13 and 17 May.

Then, on 13 November 2007, the McCanns' chief lawyer, Freemason Edward Smethurst, and the head of their private investigation, Brian Kennedy, travelled to Portugal and met with the Murat family and their lawyer Francisco Pagarete. Somehow, after that meeting, everything became hunky-dory between the two 'camps'.

Maybe Smith was persuaded to end up siding with Murat and join the new, united Murat-McCann camp. Such a scenario would provide a credible explanation for his conduct. Murat was well known to Smith; they 'met' on 'several occasions' over a period of 'two years'.

@ willowhthewisp     Thank you also for your contributions to the forum - and for your kind comments above.

I think Amelie McCann's evidence is enormously helpful: "Maddie's jammes! Where is Maddie?" - confirmation of Dr Martin Roberts' research which shows that the pyjamas held up at those two press calls of 5 and 7 Jne 2007 were not Amelie's, as claimed, but Madeleine's.

A hat tip too, to big-mouth 'Uncle John' for bringing this priceless comment of Amelie's to our notice.

.

by **Tony Bennett** 15.04.17 15:50

BlueBag wrote:
3 Kate McCann washed Madeleine’s pyjamas on the morning of Thursday 3 May, according to her book

4 She (or someone else) then took a photo of Madeleine’s pyjamas, in their apartment

What is the evidence for claim 4 Tony?

You need to read the full 'Nightwear Job' article.

Here, Dr Roberts shows that the pyjama photo was taken on a blue hesian background,

This matches the furniture in the McCanns' apartment.

It is therefore consistent with Kate McCann's account of washing Madeleine's pyjamas on the morning of 3 May.

But Roberts goes further. There are TWO similar photos n existence. From these he explains that one photo displays signs of dampness on the pyjamas while the second one does not - consistent with the photos being taken during the drying-out process after being washed.

.

by Phoebe 15.04.17 15:56

Are my eyes deceiving me or is the word Madeleine written on these pyjamas in faded but still visible letters just above the blue donkey? The M seems to begin just after the flower to the left above the donkey? If you enlarge you can see it pretty clearly despite the fading???. Maybe I'm going mad. I would be grateful if someone with better technology, or even eyes would look and see if it's just me.

by **Jill Havern** 15.04.17 15:57

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

by **Tony Bennett** 15.04.17 16:37

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

isabelle McFadden, a.k.a. 'The Queen of Portugal', a.k.a Madeleine Case Tweets has become a laughing stock. It was not so long ago she was advocating that all female McCann-sceptics should post nude selfies of themselves in support of Madeleine(?). Not to mention her past track record of pretending to be a McCann-supporter on Twitter and harassing the late Brenda Leyland and all sorts of other daft pranks.

Maybe in her next chat to Martin Smith's neighbour she could ask him/her why for the past nine years since January 2008, Martin Smith has backed the McCanns all the way and since 2012 has actively been co-operating with Operation Grange.

Those who have been viewing CMOMM for some time may recall McFadden's skullduggery in the 'Soustergate' affair, where she, rugby-player Mark Souster and rugby-fanatic Brian Kennedy, head of the McCanns' private investigation, were up to no good in the Madeleine McCann case. Like most things McFadden, it all went pear-shaped in the end.

by Doug D 15.04.17 17:06

Phoebe:

‘Are my eyes deceiving me or is the word Madeleine written on these pyjamas in faded but still visible letters just above the blue donkey?’

No, it’s not your eyes, but there is a lot of script all down the pink top that has ‘contaminated’ the photo. It’s not actually written on the pyjamas.

by Guest 15.04.17 18:47

To answer TB's question, no it's not 100% proof as Martin Roberts has not been proven 100% correct. Mr Smith nor any of his family stated it was (Eeyore) pyjamas just light clothing / pyjamas (no mention of frills or anything). They therefore didn't identify these particular pyjamas (even if Dr Roberts is correct).

by **Tony Bennett** 15.04.17 19:01

HKP wrote:To answer TB's question, no it's not 100% proof as Martin Roberts has not been proven 100% correct. Mr Smith nor any of his family stated it was (Eeyore) pyjamas just light clothing / pyjamas (no mention of frills or anything). They therefore didn't identify these particular pyjamas (even if Dr Roberts is correct).

@ HKP But do you concede Dr Roberts' key points about the pyjamas, namely

1 They were Madeleine's?
2 They were photographed by the McCanns in their apartment?
3 That photo (taken in the apartment) was forwarded to Leics Police by the McCanns (or others on their behalf), and were then used by the mass media?, and
4 The very same pyjamas featured in the Crimewatch programme (5 June) and the Holland press call (7 June)?

If so, it follows that the Smiths, if they saw anyone at all, didn't see Madeleine, doesn't it?

While you're here, what is your view please on the Last Photo? Sunday? - or Thursday?

by Guest 15.04.17 19:37

Tony Bennett wrote:
HKP wrote:To answer TB's question, no it's not 100% proof as Martin Roberts has not been proven 100% correct. Mr Smith nor any of his family stated it was (Eeyore) pyjamas just light clothing / pyjamas (no mention of frills or anything). They therefore didn't identify these particular pyjamas (even if Dr Roberts is correct).
@ HKP But do you concede Dr Roberts' key points about the pyjamas, namely

1 They were Madeleine's?
2 They were photographed by the McCanns in their apartment?
3 That photo (taken in the apartment) was forwarded to Leics Police by the McCanns (or others on their behalf), and were then used by the mass media?, and
4 The very same pyjamas featured in the Crimewatch programme (5 June) and the Holland press call (7 June)?

If so, it follows that the Smiths, if they saw anyone at all, didn't see Madeleine, doesn't it?

While you're here, what is your view please on the Last Photo? Sunday? - or Thursday?

Its' not been proven that Dr Roberts was correct althought he puts up a very strong argument. If Maddie had an extra pair of these pyjamas im sure the McCanns would have stated this so I'm inclined to believe he was correct. It's more than odd though that they would risk using the actuals.

Last photo:- not an area whereI have much kowledge (photography) however I think PM's research is valid so Sunday

by **Jill Havern** 15.04.17 19:59

PeterMac has let me pinch this quote which is from a new upcoming chapter for his ebook: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Some time ago many of us tried to make a list of all the blatant lies and untruths said by, or on behalf of, the McCanns and the Tapas 7. So long was the list that eventually it had to go to print in shortened form.

Here I have tried to pinpoint things said by relatives and friends, who perhaps thought they were being supportive and helpful, but which turned out not to be.

Some of the things said either damaged the “official story” as it was at the time - because as we know even that has changed with the seasons - or caused researchers to focus on the point being made.

* * * *

1st prize
Uncle John McCann - Maddy’s ‘jammies'

Pride of place must surely go to Uncle John.

According to John McCann: "Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?'

Even the devout Kate (see later) must cringe when she reads that.

‘Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings’ Matthew 21:16

In five devastating words - of which only two are important - Amelie demonstrated

a) The pyjamas were Madeleine’s - and logically therefore Madeleine was not wearing them when she ‘disappeared’. The implications of this are surely obvious.

b) There were no duplicate pyjamas owned and worn by Amelie, as the McCanns mendaciously and unconvincingly claimed later, when they realised they had been caught out having shown Madeleine’s pyjamas in public.

b) Madeleine was known as Maddy within the family, despite the subsequent mendacious insistence by Kate that this contraction was an invention of the press. Amelie neatly corroborates everything the world already knew.

Not bad for 2 words from a 2 year old ! Many thanks to Uncle John for telling the world.

by **Tony Bennett** 15.04.17 20:12

HKP wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
HKP wrote:To answer TB's question, no it's not 100% proof as Martin Roberts has not been proven 100% correct. Mr Smith nor any of his family stated it was (Eeyore) pyjamas just light clothing / pyjamas (no mention of frills or anything). They therefore didn't identify these particular pyjamas (even if Dr Roberts is correct).
@ HKP But do you concede Dr Roberts' key points about the pyjamas, namely

1 They were Madeleine's?
2 They were photographed by the McCanns in their apartment?
3 That photo (taken in the apartment) was forwarded to Leics Police by the McCanns (or others on their behalf), and were then used by the mass media?, and
4 The very same pyjamas featured in the Crimewatch programme (5 June) and the Holland press call (7 June)?

If so, it follows that the Smiths, if they saw anyone at all, didn't see Madeleine, doesn't it?

While you're here, what is your view please on the Last Photo? Sunday? - or Thursday?
It's not been proven that Dr Roberts was correct althought he puts up a very strong argument. If Maddie had an extra pair of these pyjamas I'm sure the McCanns would have stated this so I'm inclined to believe he was correct. It's more than odd though that they would risk using the actuals.

Last photo:- not an area where I have much kowledge (photography) however I think PM's research is valid so Sunday

@ HKP Thanks for the answers. Yes I think the McCanns 'missed a trick' by not saying Madeleine had two pairs of pyjamas.

PeterMac did all the great weather research on the Last Photo, but he also opened up the debate on whether or not any of it was photoshopped, and the photographers on here were unanimous that it wasn't

by Carrry On Doctor 15.04.17 20:43

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Snipped

According to John McCann: "Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?'

snipped

Maybe this has another significance, and as we know Kate cant help leaking marbles. Why would Kate have put Amelie in Maddys pyjamas ?

On balance, I believe the Smiths saw someone, and I have long thought the decoy child could have been Amelie. So was it a truth that Amelie was indeed dressed in Maddys pyjamas, but for the Smithman sighting ?

Amelie would understandably have asked "Where is Maddy" if, on the 3rd, Maddy had already been absent for days.

by Guest 15.04.17 21:25

,

RosieandSam wrote:For the record, I don't believe in the Smith sighting. But I have one lingering question:

Why would Martin Smith phone Leicestershire police after he saw the McCanns return to the UK (video of McCanns descending plane and speech on tarmac - each holding a twin) and say that he was 60-80% certain that it was Gerry McCann he saw that night carrying the child in PDL?

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

There are a lot of broken and missing links in the Martin Smith family chain of events - enough in itself to arouse suspicion.

Four months after the alleged sighting of the stranger that didn't look like a tourist but little else to identify, suddenly becomes clear because Smith sees footage of McCann carrying his child in the exact same way as most people carry a very young child? Why did Martin Smith think to telephone Leicestershire Police, if indeed he did, as opposed to his local force - or even Scotland Yard?

I'm thinking this Smith revelation was set up to create yet another distraction. The chances of Gerry McCann carrying a child around the streets, dead or alive, hovers around zero - especially as he has witnesses to say he was seated at the Tapas restaurant at the time the Smith family witnessed the child bearing stranger.

by **Jill Havern** 15.04.17 21:26

AnnaEsse wrote this blog:

Wednesday, 20 May 2009

Madeleine McCann - Those Pyjamas absolutely fascinate me! Updated.

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

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

The McCanns, above, holding up a pair of pyjamas, which they said were identical to the ones Maddie was wearing when she disappeared. Note the shape of the legs and also the general colour of them, which looks to me like white, with a floral pattern. Pink? Not as far as I can make out.

This is a sketch of the abductor carrying a child that was based on one of Jane Tanner's descriptions and which she agreed was accurate.

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

Those pyjamas have changed somewhat! For a start, do you think, looking at the shape of the garments the McCanns are showing, that the legs would not only come down to the ankles, but be so tight? I don't think so! Those pyjamas are the style that would come just over the knees or to mid-calf and the loose, baggy shape would mean that with a child being carried in the manner shown, the bottoms would ride up the legs. Also, the flowers have gone quite pink!

Here is part of Jane Tanner's comments on the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of November 19th 2007.

"JANE: Well I could see.. I could tell it was a child, and I could see the feet and... feet and the bottom of the pyjamas, and I just thought that child's not got any shoes on because you could see the feet, and it was quite a cold night in Portugal in May it's not actually that warm, and I'd got a big jumper on, and I can remember thinking oh that parent is not a particularly good parent, they've not wrapped them up.
BILTON: And could you tell if it was a boy or a girl?
JANE: Only because the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them so you presume a girl. It was actually quite cold."
So, Jane Tanner could see the feet and the bottom of the pyjamas? How? They would have been at least half-way up the legs, if not right up over the knees according to how the child was allegedly being carried. And pink? No, those pyjama bottoms were white with a floral pattern that doesn't look at all pink.

In Jane Tanner's original statement, she said she had seen, "..a man carrying a bundle that could have been a child." So, if she had seen feet and pyjama bottoms so clearly, how could she not be sure at that time that the bundle was a child? She actually repeats this on the Pamorama programme, in which she also describes the child's feet and pyjamas. Some kind of contradiction there?

"Describing what she witnessed on the fateful evening of May 3, Miss Tanner said: "Never in a million years did I think it could have been Madeleine. But I didn't know then.
"I just saw a person walk along the top of the road with what could have been a child in his arms."
What could have been child in his arms, but with bare feet and wearing pyjamas with a pinky aspect, so you knew it was a girl? Right! Easy to mistake a bundle of laundry or whatever for a child! Since when, though, did a bundle with bare feet poking out of pyjamas, that was obviously a girl, look like anything other than a human being?
Just one of the many puzzling contradictions about this case, but for me, it stands out as one of the most basic questions. How did the "bundleman," become the man carrying a child wearing Maddie's pyjamas? How could Jane Tanner perceive a "pinky," aspect under street lights? How come neither Jez Wilkins nor Gerry McCann saw this man? How come neither of the men saw Jane Tanner, who says she walked right past them on the pavement?
Yes, those pyjamas fascinate me! There is also, of course, the changing description of the abductor himself and what he was wearing!
Update Wednesday May 20th.
Thanks to a comment from Anonymous, I have an article in which John McCann, Gerry's brother, talks about Maddie's pyjamas.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
"That was terrible for them," says John McCann, Mr McCann's elder brother, who has also travelled to Portugal to help search for his niece.
"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?' But she is too young to understand. And how do you explain? All we know is that Madeleine needs her family. She loves us, we love her. It is time for her to come home."
Now, if your precious child had just disappeared, would you dress another child in her pyjamas? Very strange behaviour. And which pyjamas is he talking about? The Eeyore jammies? A different set of jammies? The McCanns are holding up a set of pyjamas, which are supposed to be "like," the ones Maddie was wearing when she disappeared. I think it was assumed that those belonged to Amélie. If you look at the size of the pyjamas the McCanns are holding up and observe how small Amélie was in May 2007, would those pyjamas have fitted her?

I don't think those pyjamas would have fitted Amélie: too big. So, did Maddie have more than one pair of Eeyore pyjamas? If M&S had sent another pair to the McCanns, that's not them, because you can see by the stretched neck that those have been washed quite a few times. OK, so if they have been washed quite a few times, they must be quite old and therefore would have tripped little Amélie up at the time they were bought.

So, those must be Maddie's pyjamas and if Maddie was wearing pyjamas just like those when she disappeared, then she must have had more than one pair of the exact same pyjamas on holiday. Or what?

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

by Guest 15.04.17 21:29

Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
3 Kate McCann washed Madeleine’s pyjamas on the morning of Thursday 3 May, according to her book

4 She (or someone else) then took a photo of Madeleine’s pyjamas, in their apartment

What is the evidence for claim 4 Tony?
You need to read the full 'Nightwear Job' article.

Here, Dr Roberts shows that the pyjama photo was taken on a blue hesian background,

This matches the furniture in the McCanns' apartment.

It is therefore consistent with Kate McCann's account of washing Madeleine's pyjamas on the morning of 3 May.

But Roberts goes further. There are TWO similar photos n existence. From these he explains that one photo displays signs of dampness on the pyjamas while the second one does not - consistent with the photos being taken during the drying-out process after being washed.

.

I'm not getting this.

They are not stupid.

They would not say Madeleine was taken in those pyjamas and say these are the same pyjamas at a press conference.

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

I thought I remembered they produced pyjamas that were similar, identical even.

I don't think a blue background is evidence of it being taken in 5A either.

by Guest 15.04.17 21:36

Also...

The claim that the background material of the photo is identical to the furniture in the McCanns apartment is pretty obviously not true.

A snip from the video where the claim is made:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Come one guys, keep it real.

by tnb 15.04.17 21:43

Unless I was there as a witness I could never say 100%.

by **Tony Bennett** 15.04.17 22:34

BlueBag wrote:Also...

The claim that the background material of the photo is identical to the furniture in the McCanns apartment is pretty obviously not true.

A snip from the video where the claim is made:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Come on guys, keep it real.

I understand your scepticism.

I can't recall how Roberts explains the colour discrepancy above. I think the photo on the left may have been taken without flash and the one on the right with flash. I don't know if that fully or partly accounts for the colour difference.

But are we not missing the point by focusing on the background of the photo? - yes, it could have been taken elsewhere.

We know this:

1. The source for the photo was the McCanns. IIRC it was supplied to Leics Police via a photographic agency in Lagos, someone will correct me if I am wrong

2. The McCanns represented the image as of being of the 'type' of pyjamas worn by Madeleine

3. The photo shows unmistakeable signs of wear and tear, however, e.g. the wisp of cotton on one of the legs

4. The very same wisp of cotton is seen on the pyjamas held up by the McCanns on Crimewatch (5 Jun 2007) and at the Amsterdam press call (7 Jun 2007) (and other markings which were the same on both the pyjama photo and the photos at the press calls)

5. However, the McCanns at the press calls insisted they were holding up Amelie's pyjamas, despite the fact that when the McCanns held them up, they looked much too big to be Amelie's

6. And Amelie said, in effect: "Those are not my pyjamas. They are Maddie's"

.

by Phoebe 16.04.17 0:00

I interpreted what Martin Roberts (a terrific piece of research) said somewhat differently. I don't think he implied that the pyjamas were much too big for Amelie in 2007, but, that at the time they would have had to have been bought (size - aged 2-3), Amelie was less than one year old. The main difference cited between "Amelie's" and Madeleine's pyjamas was the button fastening at the back. Allegedly, Madeleine's "kidnapped" pyjamas did not have this feature. Martin Roberts' investigation proved that those pyjamas, with this feature, were no longer available after Autumn/Winter 2005/ 2006. Madeleine at this time, was indeed 2-3 years old, the correct age for them, whereas Amelie only turned 1yr old in Feb 2006. How likely is it that a mother would buy identical sets of pyjamas, one for a child who would use them immediately and another to be kept in storage for a year or more until Amelie grew into them? In addition, the pyjamas put on show as Amelie's had been well worn. Bear in mind that M&S children's pyjamas were generously sized and that Amelie had only turned two in Feb.

by Phoebe 16.04.17 0:07

Phoebe wrote:I interpreted what Martin Roberts (a terrific piece of research) said somewhat differently. I don't think he implied that the pyjamas were much too big for Amelie in 2007, but, that at the time they would have had to have been bought (size - aged 2-3), Amelie was less than one year old. The main difference cited between "Amelie's" and Madeleine's pyjamas was the button fastening at the back. Allegedly, Madeleine's "kidnapped" pyjamas did not have this feature. Martin Roberts' investigation proved that those pyjamas, with this feature, were no longer available after Autumn/Winter 2005/ 2006. Madeleine at this time, was indeed 2-3 years old, the correct age for them, whereas Amelie only turned 1yr old in Feb 2006. How likely is it that a mother would buy identical sets of pyjamas, one for a child who would use them immediately and another to be kept in storage for a year or more until Amelie grew into them? In addition, the pyjamas put on show as Amelie's had been well worn. Bear in mind that M&S children's pyjamas were generously sized and that Amelie had only turned two in Feb.

For clarification, available across Autumn 2005 and into Jan/ Feb 2006.

by worriedmum 16.04.17 0:18

And this style of pyjama means that they do last for a long time-the pyjama legs just seem a little shorter.M&S sizes are generous and IIRC Madeleine was petite?

by Guest 16.04.17 0:36

BlueBag wrote:I don't think a blue background is evidence of it being taken in 5A either.

I question the provenance of this image..

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

There can be no logical reason why anyone would photograph a pair of pyjamas unless, on this occasion, it was for the benefit of the investigation to identify the type of night attire Madeleine was wearing when allegedly abducted. Whether or not the pyjamas were wet or damp when photographed, I haven't a clue. Admittedly I haven't paid much attention to the subject, it's too confusing which makes me wonder if it's been blown out of proportion. Why so much emphasis on a pair of pyjamas?

According to Kate McCann..

Thursday 3rd May 2007

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....

I returned to our apartment before Gerry had finished his tennis lesson and washed and hung Madeleine’s pyjama top on the veranda.
----------

She says she washed the top, not the top and bottom. This is not the sort of detail you would mention, there has to be a reason why Kate McCann was so eager to stress the incident. Not that I believe it!

Is it normal to pack only one pair of pyjamas for a weeks holiday - for a child? $i don\'t know$

by **Jill Havern** 16.04.17 5:24

Phoebe wrote:I interpreted what Martin Roberts (a terrific piece of research) said somewhat differently. I don't think he implied that the pyjamas were much too big for Amelie in 2007, but, that at the time they would have had to have been bought (size - aged 2-3), Amelie was less than one year old. The main difference cited between "Amelie's" and Madeleine's pyjamas was the button fastening at the back. Allegedly, Madeleine's "kidnapped" pyjamas did not have this feature. Martin Roberts' investigation proved that those pyjamas, with this feature, were no longer available after Autumn/Winter 2005/ 2006. Madeleine at this time, was indeed 2-3 years old, the correct age for them, whereas Amelie only turned 1yr old in Feb 2006. How likely is it that a mother would buy identical sets of pyjamas, one for a child who would use them immediately and another to be kept in storage for a year or more until Amelie grew into them? In addition, the pyjamas put on show as Amelie's had been well worn. Bear in mind that M&S children's pyjamas were generously sized and that Amelie had only turned two in Feb.

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

by **Jill Havern** 16.04.17 5:29

BlueBag wrote:Also...

The claim that the background material of the photo is identical to the furniture in the McCanns apartment is pretty obviously not true.

A snip from the video where the claim is made:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Come one guys, keep it real.

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

by Guest 16.04.17 7:41

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Also...

The claim that the background material of the photo is identical to the furniture in the McCanns apartment is pretty obviously not true.

A snip from the video where the claim is made:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Come one guys, keep it real.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So... what's the next question?

Who tampered with the image?

This is a Daily Mail 2007 report.

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

Background is black.

Apologies if people think I'm being negative again, but credibility is important.

by plebgate 16.04.17 7:54

Not very good with photoshopping but is it being stated that the jammies on the light blue background has been photoshopped.

How would whoever did it get an exact match to the furniture in the apartment?