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 Guest 16.04.17 16:30

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

by **Nina** 17.04.17 18:03

Phoebe wrote: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.

I could imagine collecting from the creche and taking them to high tea. Then taking them back to the apartment and bathing and changing them into night clothes and then taking them out with us in a buggy whilst we ate at a nearby restaurant as hundreds of tourist families have done before me.
Certainly not take a bathed and pj'd child out to the playground to play monsters and be twizzled around though. No way.

by **sharonl** 17.04.17 19:11

Phoebe wrote: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.

Yeah, but these are people who carry fresh sea bass, rotting meat and dirty nappies from 2 year olds in their car boot. However, they do wash the curtains in the holiday apartment that they rented for a week and allegedly dispose of fridges by taking them to the tip. And of course, Kate is so particular that she washed a small tea stain out of Madeleines pyjamas whilst on holiday. This pair are a bit odd where hygiene is concerned

by Phoebe 17.04.17 20:43

sharonl wrote:
Phoebe wrote: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.

Yeah, but these are people who carry fresh sea bass, rotting meat and dirty nappies from 2 year olds in their car boot. However, they do wash the curtains in the holiday apartment that they rented for a week and allegedly dispose of fridges by taking them to the tip. And of course, Kate is so particular that she washed a small tea stain out of Madeleines pyjamas whilst on holiday. This pair are a bit odd where hygiene is concerned

Brilliant! sarcastic

I don't know why Kate was so puzzled about where the stain on the pyjamas could possibly have come from or why she made such a point of it. Her kids were careering around the playground in them, well, according to her and Gerry.

by JohnyT 17.04.17 21:14

sharonl wrote:
Phoebe wrote: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.

Yeah, but these are people who carry fresh sea bass, rotting meat and dirty nappies from 2 year olds in their car boot. However, they do wash the curtains in the holiday apartment that they rented for a week and allegedly dispose of fridges by taking them to the tip. And of course, Kate is so particular that she washed a small tea stain out of Madeleines pyjamas whilst on holiday. This pair are a bit odd where hygiene is concerned

....and don't forget the lack of a toothbrush. Very strange behaviour for doctors IMHO
JohnyT

by Guest 17.04.17 21:53

JohnyT wrote:
....and don't forget the lack of a toothbrush. Very strange behaviour for doctors IMHO
JohnyT

Would you be so kind as to provide the source of that information please? howdy

by JohnyT 17.04.17 22:03

Not at this present time no but when I have time I will have a look.
Thanks
JohnyT

by **sharonl** 17.04.17 22:15

Verdi wrote:
JohnyT wrote:
....and don't forget the lack of a toothbrush. Very strange behaviour for doctors IMHO
JohnyT
Would you be so kind as to provide the source of that information please?

This appears in a number of news reports and blogs. The source of this information is the McCanns themselves when the PJ were looking for Madeleine DNA and they claimed that the children shared a hair brush and toothbrush.

Going back to the PJs, if DNA in the hire car was from Madeleines unwashed pyjamas (why didn't Kate wash them at the same time that the washed a tea stain out the Eyeore ones?), how come there was no DNA to give to the police when they requested it?

by plebgate 17.04.17 23:09

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

by Guest 17.04.17 23:57

sharonl wrote:
Verdi wrote:
JohnyT wrote:
....and don't forget the lack of a toothbrush. Very strange behaviour for doctors IMHO
JohnyT
Would you be so kind as to provide the source of that information please?

This appears in a number of news reports and blogs. The source of this information is the McCanns themselves when the PJ were looking for Madeleine DNA and they claimed that the children shared a hair brush and toothbrush.

I know it's been the subject of talk over the years on fora and blogs but I've yet to see an official source that confirms the claim; I'm quite sure it's not mentioned anywhere in the PJ files. In my opinion it is and always has been an urban myth..

As regards a uncontaminated source of Madeleine's DNA, a stand alone toothbrush doesn't signify any more than a hairbrush. There would be any number of personal items belonging to Madeleine in apartment 5a that could be a source of Madeleine's DNA - socks, sandals, trainers, undergarments, nightwear, shorts, t-shirt, sunhat, Gap broderie anglais frock, hair adornment etc etc.

The initial forensic examination carried out by the PJ forensic team was standard policing, looking for evidence of a crime -they were not looking for Madeleine's DNA. They knew Madeleine had been in apartment 5a, there was no requirement to confirm that fact by way of DNA evidence.

I remain unconvinced until such times as compelling evidence is forthcoming.

by ChippyM 18.04.17 12:05

Amelie apparently recognised 'Maddies Jammies'....

is it not possible Madeleine had more than 1 pair, an old pair that no longer fit her were taken with them as hand me downs for Amelie? Of course it is possible.

I don't see how it can be said with certainty that there was only 1 pair of pajamas for Madeleine.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.04.17 12:14

ChippyM wrote:Amelie apparently recognised 'Maddies Jammies'....

is it not possible Madeleine had more than 1 pair, an old pair that no longer fit her were taken with them as hand me downs for Amelie? Of course it is possible.

I don't see how it can be said with certainty that there was only 1 pair of pyjamas for Madeleine.

So how did Amelie instantly recognise that these jammies were Maddie's, not hers? This is important corroborative evidence in support of the other information that Dr Martin Roberts has so brilliantly researched and made available to us.

Besides that, it's never been part of the McCanns' narrative that Madeleine had more than one pair of pjyamas on holiday. They've never actually said: "We took two pairs for Maddie".

by Guest 18.04.17 12:30

They've never actually said: "We took two pairs for Maddie".

They would have done though.

I remember what it was like when my kids were that age.

by Doug D 18.04.17 13:16

ChippyM:

‘is it not possible Madeleine had more than 1 pair, an old pair that no longer fit her were taken with them as hand me downs for Amelie? Of course it is possible.’

I have a recollection that the pyjamas, the buttoned version, were released by M&S in the summer of 2006 and then changed to the button-less version in the summer of 2007. If this was the case, it would reduce the likelihood of hand-me-downs.

Had a look but can’t find anything about them this morning though, but generally the shops don’t keep these things for very long and knock out a new line and design to try and drum up sales.

by roz 20.04.17 14:27

I think that Kate’s quandary over the tea stain on the pyjamas was mentioned simply to re-inforce a sequence; think child’s pyjamas, think child put to bed, think child abducted from bed in pyjamas.
It leads me to think that Madeleine was not in bed-time attire at all when ‘it’ happened.

by Irene 2 23.04.17 19:14

Get'emGonçalo wrote: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.

I'm sorry but I still don't understand this. I watched Richard Halls 6 films yesterday and read Dr. Robert's report but it's puzzled me since.
Were the pyjamas in the photograph claimed to have been Madeleine's by whoever gave it to the police? If not why couldn't they have been a hand me down pair of Amelias?
They are photographed on what looks like the sofa in 5A and I know there wasn't another apartment used by the group with blue upholstery. McCanns moved out of 5A during the early hours of 4th May but did they take everything from the apartment with them? If not and if they were a hand me down pair of Amelias they could have photographed them when they collected their things from the apartment. I'm sorry for so many ifs.
I know Kate McCann said she hadn't taken any photographs since the fake last one but they both say a lot of stuff only for effect. Did Amelia always refer to them as Maddies jammies when she'd seen Madeleine wearing them when they were still hers?
I'm not buying anything about an abduction but this could simply have been something to claim she was wearing but in a larger size without buttons. Not unusual as smaller size tops often have buttons to ease putting them on.
They claimed there were a pair of Madeleleine's dirty pyjamas in their hire car but wasn't all of their dirty washing done by the site laundry on the 4th or 5th?

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....