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 **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.
[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.

@ 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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

by mootle 16.04.17 12:06

Over-enthusiastic photo editor? Yes, maybe as simple as that

it is actually quite easy to alter just a part of the image without affecting the others with photoshop (other brands of photo-editing software are available :) )

In my opinion both images have been digitally manipulated, probably for reasons of presentation as they were taken with a fairly poor quality camera with a weak flash (as stated above)

by Phoebe 16.04.17 12:16

mootle wrote:Over-enthusiastic photo editor? Yes, maybe as simple as that

it is actually quite easy to alter just a part of the image without affecting the others with photoshop (other brands of photo-editing software are available :) )

In my opinion both images have been digitally manipulated, probably for reasons of presentation as they were taken with a fairly poor quality camera with a weak flash (as stated above)

The most important thing to note, according to Martin Roberts, is that these are not official police photos at all but amateur photos of "Amelie's" pyjamas taken by someone else and distributed to the press. The police photos came later, after M&S had supplied them with similiar pyjamas from the 2007 stock.

by joyce1938 16.04.17 12:54

Yippee phoebe , I have spoken of this before , but I cant quit know where to start and finish ,but have mentioned the 2d ifferent style ofjammie fetly w times over years .pleased that this has come up and been dealt with intelliigentlyJoyce1983 I wish mywriting getsplayed round with ,oes anyone suffer this ? o

by joyce1938 16.04.17 13:01

The message i that I am so glad theis subject re maddies pyjamas ,is being discussed ,and the reason is , I had back memory , of this subject . and now its clear and I must have this idea years ago maybe from The maddie case files . so pleased to see what has been complicating stuff . joyce1938

by Guest 16.04.17 13:10

Why is it being presumed the photograph of the pyjamas was taken by the McCanns in apartment 5a, on Thursday 3rd May? The way I see it, the McCanns claimed abduction, needed to give the PJ a description of what she was wearing when abducted. Pyjamas provided by the McCanns of course but who's to say when, where and by whom it was taken? Hence my concern about the provenance of the photograph.

If I've missed something, which is quite likely, would someone be so kind as to lead me in the right direction - please not Dr Martin Roberts take, I'm not much good at solving riddles?

by Phoebe 16.04.17 13:28

Verdi wrote:Why is it being presumed the photograph of the pyjamas was taken by the McCanns in apartment 5a, on Thursday 3rd May? The way I see it, the McCanns claimed abduction, needed to give the PJ a description of what she was wearing when abducted. Pyjamas provided by the McCanns of course but who's to say when, where and by whom it was taken? Hence my concern about the provenance of the photograph.

If I've missed something, which is quite likely, would someone be so kind as to lead me in the right direction - please not Dr Martin Roberts take, I'm not much good at solving riddles?

You are absolutely correct. Other than the fact that this is a photo of what is claimed to be "Amelies'" pyjamas (no such pyjamas were on sale in Portugal and the pyjamas photographed are perfectly identical to "Amelie's" pair, physically displayed by the McCanns at press conferences, indicating they must have given them to the photographer) there is no actual evidence of who took the photo in question or where it was taken. This photo was apparently released to the media but not by police. The P.J. later released a photo, a stock image, which they had been forwarded by M&S and later again, when an actual pair of corresponding pyjamas was sent to them by M&S these were forwarded to the forensic lab who photographed these for the files.

by RosieandSam 16.04.17 14:00

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

The catalyst for the discussion is the page in the PJ files which includes a photo of the pyjamas (see at 2.02 mins of
Know The Truth-Madeleine: Why The Cover Up-Richard D Hall-Part 1

It is on a page which refers to speaking to Kate McCann on 8th May. (I can't find the original in the case files but I have made a screen shot to indicate the page that RDH was referring to.)

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

The problem I have with this is that the photograph appears to be overlaying the hand-written note which was written after speaking to Kate McCann on 8th May. Also, the hand-written note refers to Lagos Marina and is nothing to do with pyjamas. (Hence I have tried to find the original in the case files)

This is taken from an article in The Express, 8th August 2009 by James Murray

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

Maddy's mother photographed boat she believes snatched girl [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The note, headed "information from the family" and apparently from an officer with the Leicestershire Police as it was written on the force's notepaper, reads: "I spoke to Kate McCann on Tuesday 8th May 2007.

"She told me that a friend of her aunt and uncle had a friend that had a strong vision that Madeleine was on a boat with a man in the marina in Lagos."

It reveals that the "person" arrived in Portugal and spoke to Kate, adding: "They have visited the marina and identified the boat."

The officer spoke to a colleague who made some enquiries about the cruiser, which was registered to a Canadian national. Enquiries were also made on the police national computer.

The note goes on: "I spoke with Kate today and she has given me photographs of the boat.

"She has also given me photograph of a man who had been on the boat.

"This is not the man that the woman saw in her vision. This matter is very important to her and she is very pleased that we are making enqs (enquiries) into the matter."

In the Portugese police file there are pictures of the marina and the cruiser along with a letter from the marina to the registered owner saying that the six months' mooring contract would run out on April 8 of that year.

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

by Doug D 16.04.17 14:57

Snips from Dr Roberts, PJ files & The Truth of the Lie:

‘The image in question was 'released' to the world's media in the late afternoon of 10 May, 2007, following a press conference that day.’

‘it seems the photograph was actually a McCann production fed to the PJ, an observation wholly concordant with the fact that it was actually the McCanns who first revealed this photograph to the press, on Monday 7 May, three days before the PJ released it (as reported by Ian Herbert, the Independent, 11.5.07).’

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

To: Police Scientific Laboratory Lisbon  5th June 2007 

Subject: Sending of Pyjamas 

The present inquiry investigates the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007. I am herewith delivering to the Police Scientific Laboratory a pair of girl's pyjamas.

The Pyjamas are from Marks and Spencers, size 2 to 3 years -97 cm.  The pyjamas are composed of two pieces: camisole type without buttons and half sleeves, pink with designs, letters and tracing in white with (small) floral patterns, the right pyjama bottom leg has a design (smaller size) which is identical to that of the camisole. 

The pyjamas being sent are 'equal' in make, model, size, colours and designs as well as presumably the texture, to those the little girl was wearing at the time of her disappearance.

The article sent serves for eventual comparisons with fibres collected by the competent officers of the Police Scientific Lab, within the scope of the current investigation.

With compliments

Signed
The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
Goncalo Amaral

Letter
To: The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation

Date: 2007/03/15 (sic)
(Date incorrect, pages copied & filed are hand dated 12^th June 2007)

Ref: NUIPC 201/07 GALGS

Your communication: 2007/06/05

Ref no. 15971 Reg Correspondence 6429/07

Subject: Information

With reference to the abovementioned letter and in compliance with the despatch, we request you to provide us with information with regard to what should be done with the material sent, given that in this Scientific Police Laboratory there are no fibres that have been collected within the scope of the investigation mentioned above.
With compliments.

PP The Director of the SPL

Armando Santos
(Haed of Sector)

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

From GA’s ‘The Truth of the Lie’:

‘on the night of the disappearance, Kate immediately gave a precise description of the clothes the little girl was wearing when she was put to bed.
Everybody knew they were looking for a little girl of nearly four, bare feet, dressed in light-coloured pyjamas on which there was a pink animal design. This description was relayed to all those who mobilised to find the child.’

…………………………………………….

As with most things McCann this makes little sense if these pyjamas were still around, which appears to be the case.

Firstly, why would GA bother to obtain a pair of similar pyjamas from M&S when Amelie’s (Maddie’s?) supposed identical originals were already to hand?

Secondly, why would he then send them to his Forensic Lab. for comparison with fibres collected, only to be told no such fibres existed? Surely any potential fibre evidence must have been collected (standard police procedure?) of which GA was clearly aware, so what happened to that evidence? There must have been a reason for him to source a pair of similar pyjamas to compare with something, or he wouldn't have bothered.

Did the PJ ever get round to investigate when the Mc's photo was actually taken and what happened to the pyjamas?

Based on DP's rotatory, were they not 'little angels, all predominantly dressed in white' that night?

Not forgetting the pink blanket (and blue bag) that were photographed by the PJ and then seemingly vanished.

Maybe we'll get some answers in GA's new book which also may or may not exist.

by Guest 16.04.17 16:22

Verdi wrote:Why is it being presumed the photograph of the pyjamas was taken by the McCanns in apartment 5a, on Thursday 3rd May? The way I see it, the McCanns claimed abduction, needed to give the PJ a description of what she was wearing when abducted. Pyjamas provided by the McCanns of course but who's to say when, where and by whom it was taken? Hence my concern about the provenance of the photograph.

If I've missed something, which is quite likely, would someone be so kind as to lead me in the right direction - please not Dr Martin Roberts take, I'm not much good at solving riddles?

If you read the comments section of the blog you'll find this

The Pyjamas were Purchased from M&S
They were purchased in the UK
The Pyjamas (with button) style were Purchased in 2006
In 2006 they were far too large for Amelie
So they must have been Maddies

M&S Had closed down in portugal
M&S UK supplied a new set to the PJ
In 2007 though the style had changed (they had NO button)
So again the original Pyjamas must have been the 2006 (with button) style

The WET pyjamas were photographed after washing
They were photographed on a blue fabric sofa
So only apartment 5A had such a blue fabric sofa

KM was the only one who took their photographs
KM took NO photographs after the last Photo (2.59 3rd May) allegedly!
So the Pyjama photograph must have been taken by KM in 5A before they dried
They were washed on 3rd May morning but were dry by Afternoon

So they were photographed by KM in 5A on the blue couch in the Morning 3rd May

If the above is correct ? then why photograph Maddies pyjamas in the morning on 3rd May 2007.

by **sandancer** 16.04.17 16:22

A few random thoughts , on the night yes it was vital to give a description of what Madeleine was wearing .

However , how long would she remain wearing them ?

As a small child at some point out of fear more than likely to have lost control of her bodily functions , wet herself vomited especially if as they say the " abductor " must have drugged her .

Those pyjamas would surely have quickly been disposed of , destroyed so there was no evidence .

After that , wherever she was being kept or " moved " to she would have been dressed in normal clothes so continuing to show the pyjamas apart from maybe jogging peoples minds was to me a bit pointless .

As I said , just my random thoughts .

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....