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 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 Verdi 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

@Verdi

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.)

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 3 Pj_fil10

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

[color:4a23=000000]Sunday Express

Maddy's mother photographed boat she believes snatched girl

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.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id399.htm

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).’

"http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/dr-martin-roberts-nightwear-job.html

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)

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm

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 .

by Guest 16.04.17 16:30

jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12555-dr-martin-roberts-a-nightwear-job?highlight=Martin+Roberts

Our own thread on the pyjamas subect

by Phoebe 16.04.17 16:34

The replica pyjamas requested by Dr. Amaral were for age 2-3 and 97 c.m. in length, identical to the description of Madeleine's "kidnapped" pair. Madeleine, at the time of her disappearance, was only 91 c.m. tall according to her official description. Therefore, M&S pyjamas aged 2-3 would have been the perfect size for her to have been wearing in '07 (M&S always generously sized) but too big for Amelie in 2007 and absolutely enormous for her in 2006, the latest they could have been bought. So, the scenario we are asked to believe by the McCs is that in 2005/06 Kate purchased two identical pairs of pyjamas, both aged 2-3. and measuring 97 c.m. in length. One pair was for Madeleine, who would still not have outgrown them by May'07 (measuring 91c.m.) and another pair, also 97 c.m. long, was for a baby who would not grow into them for another 18 months. With regard to the photo Martin Roberts claims it must have been taken by the McCann's or their group. The background beneath is of blue material. He shows that there was no such blue material (furniture) in any of the other apartments to which the McCanns had access after May 3rd. Fair enough, one might say, obviously someone photographed the pyjamas laid out on the McCann's furniture in 5A at some stage after the "abduction".However, no one had access to the 5A apartment after May 3rd to make use of such background. So, where was this photo taken by team McCann? Given that it came from Kate's camera it seems logical that either she or Gerry took it. Gerry claims that it was Kate who took all photos - therefore Kate took it. However, she claimed to have not used her camera after the "last photo"on May 3rd and would not have access to any apartment which had blue furniture to serve as a background. If Kate took this photo, she would had to have done so before Madeleine went missing.

by Doug D 16.04.17 16:46

Candyfloss, over the road, suggesting the pyjamas were filmed against the blue press conference background.

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 3 McCannsClothes

This is clearly not right, as this press conference was in Berlin on 6^th June 2007, a month after the ‘suspect’ photo.

by **Jill Havern** 16.04.17 16:54

Doug D wrote:Candyfloss, over the road, suggesting the pyjamas were filmed against the blue press conference background.

This is clearly not right, as this press conference was in Berlin on 6^th June 2007, a month after the ‘suspect’ photo.

And wouldn't Kate and Gerry's hands be seen on the photograph?

by Doug D 16.04.17 17:03

No, the suggestion was they had been pinned up against the background.

by Phoebe 16.04.17 17:32

Doug D wrote:No, the suggestion was they had been pinned up against the background.

Then they are defying gravity as the wrinkles and folds have not dropped downwards. big grin

by plebgate 17.04.17 9:04

snipped from Doug D's post above as cannot use quote facility.

"
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.’ "

looking for a little girl with bare feet so Maddie's slippers were still in the apartment?

So Maddie's shoes would have been no use for DNA analysis as her sister had been wearing them but what happened to Maddie's slippers. Why weren't they given for DNA purposes? Maybe she didn't take slippers away on holiday though just like the toothbrush?

by **Tony Bennett** 17.04.17 9:21

A CMOMM member has kindly sent me, by 'pm', some pertinent observations about eye-witness testimony.

S/he has over 20 years' experience in evaluating witness testimony especially eye-witness testimony. The observations are clearly relevant to the Smiths' claims. Here are her/his observations:

==================================

We recognise people through a fairly tight connection of facial features. The better we know the person the better recognition we have of them. So, if I knew you very well and I saw you in the street but you were wearing a wig or had shaved all your hair I'd still be able to say: "It's Tony." Similarly, we can recognise people we've not seen for a very long time and despite obvious ageing.

The problem comes with recognising people we don't know, when we've only met them briefly and especially when we have no reason to remember them. For example, if a stranger has just robbed me of my wallet I've got a reason to want to recognise them again and will retain some information both conciously and subconciously. On the other hand, I could sit opposite someone on the train for an hour and if you asked me shortly afterwards for a description I may well struggle for detail. Most of us would certainly have difficultly remembering the features of someone we had simply passed in the street even a short time previously (barring any unusual features).

In latter cases, people tend to remember general features like race, hair, build and clothing but crucially not detailed facial features.

With regard to the McCann case, we are asked to believe that a passing glimpse of someone on a poorly lit street has lead to these e-fits being created some time after the event (I can't recall how long?**) Like so much of this sorry saga it just doesn't add up.

** [Added by TB: We know that by the first week in January 2008, Martin Smith was already talking to Brian Kennedy, the head of the McCann Team's private investigation. In theory, Henri Exton could have met the Smiths and drawn up the efits in the weeks immediately following their first contact. That would make the efits as having been produced some 8 to 9 months after the initial claimed sighting on 3 May. However, other indications we have are that Exton drew up the controversial efits around May 2008, which would mean the delay beween sighting and drawing up the efits was one year. At all times, when evaluating the Smiths' claims and the efits, we must remember two things:
1. Henri Exton is on the record as having been the Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5 and
2. The efits are of two quite diffrerent-looking faces. It is almost unprecedented for any police force to issue two quite different efits for ONE suspect - T.B.]

.

.

by Guest 17.04.17 10:11

With regard to the McCann case, we are asked to believe that a passing glimpse of someone on a poorly lit street has lead to these e-fits being created some time after the event (I can't recall how long?**) Like so much of this sorry saga it just doesn't add up.

Indeed.

The e-fits are a nonsense.

by kaz 17.04.17 14:01

But strangely enough to my eyes , the dual e fit for the one abductee certainly individually resembles each Podesta brother who happen to look nothing like each other. Strange that!

by **sharonl** 17.04.17 14:10

Did Madeleine have only the one pair of pyjamas? If so, then clearly she was in day clothes when she died.

Given that she was seen by a credible witness at lunch time and the kids were bathed and changed in the PJs at tea time, can we narrow down the time of death to between 1pm and 6pm on April 29th?

by Ray_Sneek 17.04.17 14:37

sharonl wrote:Did Madeleine have only the one pair of pyjamas? If so, then clearly she was in day clothes when she died.

Given that she was seen by a credible witness at lunch time and the kids were bathed and changed in the PJs at tea time, can we narrow down the time of death to between 1pm and 6pm on April 29th?

Well, these two things would fit in with a death on Sunday 29 April say, in the late afternoon or early evening:

The Make-Up Photo

There are several indications that this photo could have been taken in Praia da Luz on the Sunday afternoon, in the hours immediately following the taking of the 'Last (pool) Photo' that same lunchtime

The Strange Booking on Sunday Evening of the Tapas Restaurant for the rest of the week

See here:
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13064-the-complete-mystery-of-the-booking-of-the-tapas-restaurant-on-sunday-29-april

One gets the strong feeling that the real reason for this strange and apparently urgent booking has never been given.

There are different accounts of who made the booking and when (a bit like the Tennis Balls Photo).

One gets the impression that the booking was made in great haste and because something significant had just happened. According to one of the many differing accounts of this booking, this was such an unusual event that they had to contact the Admin Manager, who was away on a break.

IMO, CMOMM researchers have not given nearly enough attention to this booking

by sandancer 17.04.17 14:41

sharonl wrote:Did Madeleine have only the one pair of pyjamas? If so, then clearly she was in day clothes when she died.

Given that she was seen by a credible witness at lunch time and the kids were bathed and changed in the PJs at tea time, can we narrow down the time of death to between 1pm and 6pm on April 29th?

I'm sure I remember reading about a clean pair being laid out for her when they moved to the villa .
Also a pair of her used pyjamas being mentioned as a cause for her DNA being found in the car

Even though their washing went to the laundry on Saturday 5th May . So 3 pairs ?

Please correct me if I'm wrong .

by **sharonl** 17.04.17 15:19

sandancer wrote:
sharonl wrote:Did Madeleine have only the one pair of pyjamas? If so, then clearly she was in day clothes when she died.

Given that she was seen by a credible witness at lunch time and the kids were bathed and changed in the PJs at tea time, can we narrow down the time of death to between 1pm and 6pm on April 29th?

I'm sure I remember reading about a clean pair being laid out for her when they moved to the villa .
Also a pair of her used pyjamas being mentioned as a cause for her DNA being found in the car

Even though their washing went to the laundry on Saturday 5th May . So 3 pairs ?

Please correct me if I'm wrong .

You may be right about there being more than one pair. That'll take a little bit of research but I would dismiss their excuse of the pyjamas being the cause of the DNA in the hire car, as an excuse is probably all that that was. Besides, if they had these pyjamas in the hire car after May 3rd, then these pyjamas were not abducted either. If these Pyjamas did exist, neither could they have been the ones that Madeleine was wearing if she had died. Blood, cadaver odour, they would have disposed of these had they taken them off her.

As for the other pair, would they really lay them out for her? Why? Was there a pair? Do we have evidence of that or just McCann say so to make it look as if they're expecting her return. And yet again if there was a third pair available for laying out at that point, clearly they were not abducted and highly unlikely to have been the ones that she may have died in.

So we have possibly three pairs of pyjamas, none of which were abducted, blood stained or smelling of cadaver. I think we can rule these out, and unless there was a fourth pair (or second pair if the others didn't existst) Madeleine was not in pyjamas when she died and must have died between 1pm and 6pm when the kids would have been changed for bed.

by Phoebe 17.04.17 17:53

Does anyone else find the McCann's tale of how they used to collect the children from high tea, take them home and bathe or shower them, dress them in their pyjamas and then take them back out to the playground to play (in their night attire!) odd? I cannot conceive of taking a just-washed child, in clean pyjamas, out to a play-ground to climb on slides and wendy houses and generally race about, then bring them back indoors sweaty, possibly dirty and then put them to bed in that state.

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....