Re: 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 Verdi 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..

smithman - 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? - Page 2 _42910231_pyjamas_pa203b

smithman - 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? - Page 2 _42910231_pyjamas_pa203b

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.

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:

Come one guys, keep it real.

http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-nightwear-job-by-dr-martin-roberts.html

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:

Come one guys, keep it real.

http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-nightwear-job-by-dr-martin-roberts.html

So... what's the next question?

Who tampered with the image?

This is a Daily Mail 2007 report.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-454029/Search-Madeleine--police-release-pyjamas-wearing.html

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?

by **Jill Havern** 16.04.17 8:12

According to Dr Martin Roberts on the link I gave to onlyinamerica's blog, The Telegraph posted the blue background image, which matches the sofa, and the Daily Mail posted the black background image.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.04.17 9:19

BlueBag wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Come one guys, keep it real.

http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-nightwear-job-by-dr-martin-roberts.html

So... what's the next question?

Who tampered with the image?

This is a Daily Mail 2007 report.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-454029/Search-Madeleine--police-release-pyjamas-wearing.html

Background is black.

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

@ BlueBag I, for one, have not thought for one moment that you are 'being negative' in questioning the claims made by Dr Martin Roberts.

Indeed, I know that most of us here greatly appreciate your robust challenges to statements made on here that are either plain wrong or poorly supported. We regard them as very helpful, not 'negative'.

Herewith some further observations:

The colour and texture of the photo

I am wondering if all the colour discrepancies can be explained simply by differences in photographic reproduction. I noted above that the PJ photo appeared to have been taken by flashlight. I would go further and suggest that it must have been a powerful flashbulb, sufficient to light the whole room. This would tend to distort the real colours by tending to make them look paler.

Finally, it seems that we are not comparing like with like. The pyjamas photo was probably taken without flash. The PJ photo was probably taken with flash. This difference must be taken into account in analysing the two photos.

On the question of the texture of the cloth background to the pyjamas photo and comparing it with what we can see of the texture of the furniture on the PJ photo, to me they look identical.

The provenance of the photo

I note that both the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail versions of the photograph have the letters 'PA' in the bottom right cormer - the signature of the Press Association - indicating that the photo is the copyright property of the Press Association.

The question is, how did they get it? This appears to be the sequence of events:

1. The McCanns take the photograph in their apartment, probably in the morning of Thursday 3 May

2. They pass it to:

(a) A local press agency in Lagos, and

(b) To Leics Police via Leics Police Officers already in Praia da Luz on 5 May

3. The local press agency (sorry, forgotten the name, I will try to supply it later) pass it to the Press Association, while meanwhile...

4. Leics Police pass the image to the PJ, which is how the image ends up on the PJ released DVD files on August 2008.

.

by plebgate 16.04.17 9:26

Has anyone ever seen any piece of furniture in the apartment which resembles the dark background photo?

If not then I would think that Tony's assessment in the above post would fit.

Thanks for your reply GEG.

by Guest 16.04.17 9:34

Get'emGonçalo wrote:According to Dr Martin Roberts on the link I gave to onlyinamerica's blog, The Telegraph posted the blue background image, which matches the sofa, and the Daily Mail posted the black background image.

I'd like to see proof of that (and when).

Because one of the pictures has been tampered with.

by Guest 16.04.17 9:37

I found it.

The blue background.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1551167/Madeleine-hunt-coming-to-an-end.html

I think they are the same photo, one has been altered.

The "hesian" material looks like digital artifacts to me.

I think the pattern is on the pyjamas as well.

by plebgate 16.04.17 9:44

The dark background picture at the very top shows signs of blue (imo) so that would leave me to believe that the dark background picture could have been altered.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.04.17 9:55

Stopping by to correct just one of a huge number of errors about Madeleine's pyjamas being perpetrated in another place.

This was posted in the last 24 hours by a former malcontent here who joined another place and now helps to run it:

QUOTE: "Unless I got the wrong end of the stick, Richard D Hall said in his latest video something about the pyjamas still bore traces of dampness so they were the ones that Kate claimed to have washed in the morning of 3rd May. My mind blew at that point".

Well, yes, not for the first time you have got the wrong end of the stick.

Richard D Hall said no such thing.

Neiher did Dr Martin Roberts in his long, carefully-written article.

He actually pointed to identical physical characteristics of what were clearly a used pair of pyjamas seen on the pyjama photograh AND on the pair of pyjamas held up by the McCanns at their two press calls on Crimewatch (5 June) and in Holland (7 June). See below, from Martin Roberts' article:

What at first appears to be a riddle is soon solved when one realises that the pair of pyjamas which accompanied the McCanns around Europe was the very same pair that starred in their 'official photograph' taken earlier. Kate McCann took public ownership of them before the television cameras the moment she referred to them as 'Amelie's'. On close inspection these pyjamas (Amelie's) are revealed as identical to the pair previously pictured in both the Daily Mail (10.5.07) and the Telegraph (see top of page here), down to the stray threads dangling from both upper and lower garments. This means that [what were claimed to have been 'Amelie's pyjamas', for want of a better description, were also present with the McCanns since the start of their Algarve holiday.

I really think it would be a good idea for anyone, anywhere, who is going to comment on this issue of Madeleine's pyjamas to first take a jolly good, hard and long look at the original article by Martin Roberts. Not to do so is laziness.

.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.04.17 9:59

BlueBag wrote:I found it.

The blue background.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1551167/Madeleine-hunt-coming-to-an-end.html

I think they are the same photo, one has been altered.

The "hessian" material looks like digital artifacts to me.

I think the pattern is on the pyjamas as well.

I think that Dr Martin Roberts addressed the point you are making as follows:

QUOTE:

That statement alone carries with it a very serious connotation. However, we still have a distance to travel.

The more contrastive of the two images reproduced here displays what appear to be areas of shadow, when in fact there are no local perturbations at the surface of the fabric to cause them. Similarly, the dark bands traversing the t-shirt appear more representative of what is actually beneath it. These visible oddities suggest the material is in fact damp and 'clinging' to the underlying upholstery.

There is, as we know, an anecdote of Kate McCann's, which sees her washing Madeleine's pyjama top on the Thursday morning. As re-told in her book, she does so while alone in the family's apartment:

by mootle 16.04.17 10:03

One minute's work

It's the same picture - just played about with
(brightness/saturation/colour balance)

It does appear to have been taken with flash which would explain why the blue background appears black

by Guest 16.04.17 10:08

Two articles appearing the same day, May 10th 2007, referring to "a" official photo released by the PJ.

by Guest 16.04.17 10:11

Tony Bennett wrote:
The more contrastive of the two images reproduced here displays what appear to be areas of shadow, when in fact there are no local perturbations at the surface of the fabric to cause them. Similarly, the dark bands traversing the t-shirt appear more representative of what is actually beneath it. These visible oddities suggest the material is in fact damp and 'clinging' to the underlying upholstery.

No way Tony.

Two layers of material from a wet t-shirt (front and back) is not going to show a hessian pattern beneath it.

It's digital artifacts. Something you are fully conversant with.

by Guest 16.04.17 10:13

mootle wrote:One minute's work

It's the same picture - just played about with
(brightness/saturation/colour balance)

It does appear to have been taken with flash which would explain why the blue background appears black

That is image number 3.

It's not the same as the Daily Mail or the Telelgraph image (see previous post).

You can make anything blue by adjusting the RGB numbers.

You make it red if you like.

by Guest 16.04.17 10:17

BlueBag wrote:Two articles appearing the same day, May 10th 2007, referring to "a" official photo released by the PJ.

Doh!

Telegraph, not Express.

by RosieandSam 16.04.17 10:19

@TonyBennett

For the purpose of accuracy, Richard D Hall says

"Kate said that she washed Madeline's pyamas on the morning of the day they reported her missing. The pyjamas in this photograph show signs that they are still damp (annoted photograph says 'clinging to the cloth). The blue background in the photograph is identical to the furniture in the McCann's apartment. If it is true that Kate washed Madeleine's pyjamas on the 3rd of May 2007, then the McCanns themselves may have taken this photograph on the morning of the day when they said she was abducted, ready to hand it to the Portigues police after the planned abduction hoax which was to follow"

See from 4:12 in

Know The Truth-Madeleine: Why The Cover Up-Richard D Hall-Part 1

by mootle 16.04.17 10:22

They are all the same image - look at the creases/shadows etc. Even down to the two errant threads. They have been cropped and straightened

The only way they could be different pictures is if they were taken on a tripod - one with flash the other without

by Guest 16.04.17 10:24

RosieandSam wrote:"Kate said that she washed Madeline's pyamas on the morning of the day they reported her missing. The pyjamas in this photograph show signs that they are still damp (annoted photograph says 'clinging to the cloth). The blue background in the photograph is identical to the furniture in the McCann's apartment. If it is true that Kate washed Madeleine's pyjamas on the 3rd of May 2007, then the McCanns themselves may have taken this photograph on the morning of the day when they said she was abducted, ready to hand it to the Portigues police after the planned abduction hoax which was to follow"

I don't get this line of reasoning.

They are not stupid people.

Why would they invite a question like "when and why did you take this picture"?

by Guest 16.04.17 10:27

mootle wrote:They are all the same image - look at the creases/shadows etc. Even down to the two errant threads. They have been cropped and straightened

The only way they could be different pictures is if they were taken on a tripod - one with flash the other without

I agree they are the same picture.

The shadows are identical which they wouldn't be if one was flash and the other wasn't.

The question is why are they different in colour and orientation (slight difference)?

But.... even if it is a blue background.... it means nothing. The world is not short of blue backgrounds.

by RosieandSam 16.04.17 10:44

BlueBag wrote:
RosieandSam wrote:"Kate said that she washed Madeline's pyamas on the morning of the day they reported her missing. The pyjamas in this photograph show signs that they are still damp (annoted photograph says 'clinging to the cloth). The blue background in the photograph is identical to the furniture in the McCann's apartment. If it is true that Kate washed Madeleine's pyjamas on the 3rd of May 2007, then the McCanns themselves may have taken this photograph on the morning of the day when they said she was abducted, ready to hand it to the Portigues police after the planned abduction hoax which was to follow"
I don't get this line of reasoning.

They are not stupid people.

Why would they invite a question like "when and why did you take this picture"?

Well I think that is a question for Richard D Hall.

by JRP 16.04.17 11:06

When these images have been released to the press, it's likely that the photo editing staff would have taken decisions on whether to make alterations to brightness contrast and colour balance to suit the look of their page.

We don't know the true colour of the furniture in the apartment, only that it is blue, and in other photos it looks more vibrant blue than the background in this pajama shot.
To try and make the background more blue by adjusting the colour balance, also alters the colours in the pajamas, everything becomes more blue. If we could get the true colour of the pajama top and adjust to that, we would get a better match of the overall hue.
It looks to me like the photo has a pop of flash in it, as it's lighter in the centre and darker around the edges. Looks like a small flash, rather than a professional one as the coverage area isn't very large.

Still, looking at the loose threads on the pajamas in the photo, it matches the ones held up by the McCanns, so those, in my opinion are the same pajamas.

by Phoebe 16.04.17 11:51

Martin Roberts article shows the official P.J. photo of pyjamas taken for the forensic report of 23rd Nov. 07 This official photo is different from the one under discussion, these pyjamas NOT HAVING THE BUTTON FASTENING. These were supplied by M&S at the request of the P.J and forwarded to the forensic lab on June 7th by Dr. Amaral, together with a covering letter. To quote from Roberts' article "Kate Mccann took pains to explain that the pyjamas being exhibited (by her, Amsterdam Hilton June 7th) were Amelie's, and that Madeleine's were not only bigger but did NOT(sic) feature a buttoning fastening T-shirt. Only a couple of days earlier the same pyjamas,again described as Amelie's... were presented on "Crimewatch" but without reference to the button discrepancy." Dr. Amaral's covering letter, accompanying the pyjamas to the forensic lab states "The pyjamas are from M&S aged 2-3yrs WITHOUT BUTTONS" ( M.Roberts' emphasis, the design had changed for the 2007 range)..... "They must therefore have been purchased in the same epoch as Madeleine's own i.e. during 2006 when Amelie would have been a year younger"... "Even on 2007 she (Amelie) would have been swamped by her own pyjamas, never mind the year before when they were purchased"... "In conclusion, the McCann's official photograph, first exhibited in May 2007, (a full month before the P.J. acquired a pair for their forensic photo) appears to be that of a damp pair of pyjamas, too big to have been sensibly purchased for Madeleine's younger sister that Spring, and most certainly not the year before." In a nutshell, Martin Roberts has proved that the unofficial pyjamas photo was released by the McCanns, not the police, and that, while it was claimed this was a photo of Amelie's pyjamas, this would mean Amelies 2-3 year old pyjamas had to have been purchased for her when she was only 1 yr old or less since Eeyore Pyjamas with the button feature ceased to be available after spring of 06.

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?

I've viewed Rich Hall's 4-minute clip about Maddie's pyjamas. After doing so....