Re: The Tennis Ball Photograph Revisited

by ROSA 16.09.19 13:56

Tony Bennett wrote:
ROSA wrote:Then again if the Tennis photo is a photoshopped image of a different child's body with Maddie's head then nothing was handed down to Amelie no top or shorts I feel the Police should (have) demanded to see all Maddie's holiday clothes in the first few days of her being missing.

Agreed.

But the British Ambassador interfered with Goncalo Amaral's investigation and stopped them from doing that.

It was one of the very first signs that the top levels of the British government were already implementing a plan to make sure that the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann would never be made known.

Twelve years and four months later, DCI Nicola Wall and Operation Grange are still at it

The search for Madeleine continues and the amount of money that has been spent is unpresented something like 12 million pounds I cannot get my head round this.
dontgetit

by Doug D 16.09.19 14:59

ferrotty:

'That hat looks like it's been turned inside out, look at the tip of the hat and also the holes are pink suggesting the hat is indeed pink inside.'

Snipped from the high definition copy of the photo, the 'holes' you refer to are actually little flowers. There is also a floral pattern on the underside of the brim, but you cannot tell whether this is just on the brim or all over.

I don't think there is a decent enough copy of the tennis photo to actually confirm that it is indeed the darker pink hat that AM is wearing, just with the brim folded back. (I thought there was one in the bewk, but there isn't). Personally I think it is the same hat.

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

by **Tony Bennett** 16.09.19 15:44

Doug D wrote:ferrotty:

'That hat looks like it's been turned inside out, look at the tip of the hat and also the holes are pink suggesting the hat is indeed pink inside.'

Snipped from the high definition copy of the photo, the 'holes' you refer to are actually little flowers. There is also a floral pattern on the underside of the brim, but you cannot tell whether this is just on the brim or all over.

I don't think there is a decent enough copy of the tennis photo to actually confirm that it is indeed the darker pink hat that AM is wearing, just with thbrim folded back. (I thought there was one in the bewk, but there isn't). Personally I think it is the same hat.

I agree that this is very likely.

And that raises these issues.

Did each child have more than one sun hat?

It seems unlikley.

If not, then why is Madeleine wearing a white sun hat in the 'Last (Pool) Photo' and the pink hat (most likely Amelie's) in the Tennis Balls Photo?

We also remember the comment from two-year-old Amelie when Madeleine's ACTUAL pyjamas were produced at a family gathering days after Madeleine was reported missing, namely:

''Maddie's jammies! Where is Maddie?"

Anyone used to young children will know that all of them instantly recognise when a toy or item of clothing is 'mine' and not 'his'/'hers'.

In relation to Madeleine's pyjamas, Amelie's remark was therefore highly significant. The McCanns' rigmarole about Amelie and Maddie having had the same style and colour of pyjamas as each other on holiday seems very unconvincing.

Dr Martin Roberts thought this was significant in his article 'A Nightwear Job', in which he purportedly showed how Madeleine's actual holiday pyjamas were held up at two press conferences on 5 and 7 June 2007 (London and Holland).

by Guest 16.09.19 16:12

Tony Bennett wrote:We also remember the comment from two-year-old Amelie when Madeleine's ACTUAL pyjamas were produced at a family gathering days after Madeleine was reported missing, namely:

''Maddie's jammies! Where is Maddie?"

I seriously doubt Amelie said any such thing.

Any more than I believe Kate McCann's tale told to the Lisbon courts, under oath, that Sean McCann said "Mr Amaral said you hid Madeleine's body" - or the nonsense tale about Sean hearing the news on the radio whilst traveling on the school bus.

Right up to the McCanns last recorded interviews, they were still using the twins to tug the heartstrings of the gullible public.

One thing for sure - anything they said or say is there for a reason, even if by proxy.

by **PeterMac** 16.09.19 16:21

It was one of the best "Foot in mouth" moments by a family member trying to HELP !

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

And like so many things said – it cannot now be un-said.

But it is not necessarily impossible.
I have 2 nephews and a niece, all of whom had comfort blanket snugglies.
Ellie was observed one day after all had been washed and hung out to dry in the sun on the line and were now in a heap
in a basket in the kitchen waiting to be sorted, going through the heap and holding each one to her face before selecting 'hers'.
Whether that was smell, texture, or some other thing adults no longer understand (think of Emperor penguins finding their mates and their chicks !)
we shall never know.
We shall also never know whether she got the right one !

by **Tony Bennett** 16.09.19 16:26

Verdi wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:We also remember the comment from two-year-old Amelie when Madeleine's ACTUAL pyjamas were produced at a family gathering days after Madeleine was reported missing, namely:

''Maddie's jammies! Where is Maddie?"

I seriously doubt Amelie said any such thing.

Well, it was disclosed by a relative, John McCann.

He thought he was being helpful and didn't realise this might be valuable evidence.

Amelie's remark is just the kind of remark a two-year-old would make.

Moreover, Amelie's comment EXACTLY fits Dr Martin Roberts' excellent article 'A Nightwear Job' in which he explains, after a tremendous amount of original research, exactly why he is sure that it was Madeleine's actual holiday pyjamas that were held up by Gerry and Kate at those two press conferences on 5th and 7th June 2007.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], you puzzle me sometimes.

Could you please explain to forum members and guests what are your reasons for 'seriously doubting' whether Amelie ever said this.

Is your reasoning that Amelie never said this?

Is your reasoning that John McCann made this up for some reason?

(If so, WHY would he make this up?)

Do you think Amelie said something but it's been misheard or misquoted?

I'm at a loss to know why you have such serious doubts about this...

by Guest 16.09.19 16:37

I also agree with Verdi.

John McCann said it, it's in various papers... but I'm not 100% sure Amelie at that age said what he said she said.

There could be a number of reasons for that, he was being fanciful, he mis-remembered, something else... anyway Madeleine would definitely have had more than one pair of pyjamas, even on holiday.

by **Jill Havern** 16.09.19 18:50

Having had little grandchildren I do believe it's something Amelie would say especially as she would have been wondering where Madeleine was.

For anyone who hasn't read Dr Martin Robert's excellent article, here's the link:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 16.09.19 20:14

But even if she did say, it means nothing.

She more than one pair of pyjamas... probably more than two.

My kids certainly did.

by NickE 16.09.19 20:28

ROSA wrote:Then again if the Tennis photo is a photoshopped image of a different child's body with Maddie's head then nothing was handed down to Amelie no top or shorts I feel the Police should of demanded to see all Maddie's holiday clothes in the first few days of her being missing .

The McCann clothes went through the washing machine on May 5.

Laundry worker Vera Maria Mestre Fernandes Arez:

"She remembers that on Saturday 05/05/2007 having washed clothing belonging to the missing girl's family and she checked that it was children's and adult's clothing. This service was carried out by her colleague Silvia Cravinho. That on the next day Sunday it was her colleague Bernadete Calado who went to deliver the clothing directly to the missing girl's apartment.

That before that no clothing from the missing girl's family had been washed and after that date there was no other washing of clothes from the family."

by **crusader** 16.09.19 20:45

Getting back to the pink sunhat, it's got a hairclip on the front on the pool photo. The tennis balls photo looks like it's got a hairclip on the right hand side of the picture.

by Guest 16.09.19 22:17

Tony Bennett wrote:Verdi@Verdi, you puzzle me sometimes.

I don't understand why you say such. I always make a point of explaining my rationale, I don't make blind statements just for effect. Nor do I pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe without supporting evidence.

"That was terrible for them," says John McCann, Mr McCann's elder brother, who has also travelled to Portugal to help search for his niece.

"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?' But she is too young to understand. And how do you explain? All we know is that Madeleine needs her family. She loves us, we love her. It is time for her to come home."

A media report.

For a start we have been assured that Madeleine was never referred to as Maddie/Maddy. From an early age children follow their parents manner of speaking- that's how they learn.

Secondly, if Kate McCann dressed her younger daughter in the missing child's pyjamas, all I can say is she is one very sick woman.

And then the media ....

They use quotes all the time, they are fabricated to add spice to the story. Anyone who takes the slightest notice of media reports needs to re-think, especially when plucking out specific quotes to reinforce a theory.

Research such as this, i.e. outside the realms of scientific research and the like, is but a collation of information gathered from various sources - including the media (see above). Excellent it might be in it's own right, it's not necessarily factual nor in many instances even plausible.

Just look at the saturation of research projects concerning the case of missing Madeleine McCann. They can't all be right!

Stick to the facts as far as possible - that totally excludes media reports.

by **Jill Havern** 16.09.19 22:45

Verdi wrote:
For a start we have been assured that Madeleine was never referred to as Maddie/Maddy. From an early age children follow their parents manner of speaking- that's how they learn.

I don't agree with that. It would be very difficult for a baby/toddler to pronounce the name Madeleine and could quite possibly shorten it to Maddie.

My granddaughter couldn't pronounce her own name [Imogen] and could only say 'Immy' - it's stuck and that's what everyone calls her to this day.

by ROSA 17.09.19 6:36

The Twins were 26 months old I believe at that age they most likely were able to have little conversations and know many words Mummy Daddy Maddie and so on if Amelie did say Maddie's jammies Where is Maddie it doesn't surprise me.

by ROSA 17.09.19 6:51

crusader wrote:Getting back to the pink sunhat, it's got a hairclip on the front on the pool photo. The tennis balls photo looks like it's got a hairclip on the right hand side of the picture.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
You might be right something does appear to be there

by Guest 17.09.19 7:39

Although I don't think it's a clip, I think it's almost certainly the same hat.

I think we are seeing half a flower.

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

What that means is I have no idea.

Were the hats spotted later in other post 3rd May photos?

by ROSA 17.09.19 8:50

BlueBag wrote:Although I don't think it's a clip, I think it's almost certainly the same hat.

I think we are seeing half a flower.

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

What that means is I have no idea.

Were the hats spotted later in other post 3rd May photos?

Spot on Blue Bag you just convinced me that it's the same hat I wonder if both Maddie and Amelie shared the hat for photographs that week.

by ROSA 17.09.19 9:16

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

by ROSA 17.09.19 9:47

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

by Guest 17.09.19 10:22

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

The other hat makes a post disappearance appearance.

Don't know what this all means.

by Guest 17.09.19 12:28

I can't see it matters over much who wore what hat when and where.

I've seen fathers/mothers with their kids sunhat perched on the head. I've seen fathers/mothers stick their baseball cap on the kids head so it falls over their eyes. I've seen kids squabbling over a sunhat.

It's just a bit of holiday fun.

I particularly like this one..

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

by Doug D 17.09.19 14:19

For what it’s worth:

BlueBag, good call on the flower on the dark pink hat.
The light pink one AM is wearing in your photos is not the same as the one MM is wearing, different flower patterns and a few rows of rib stitching around the hat part of AM’s.

by Guest 17.09.19 15:37

Doug D wrote:The light pink one AM is wearing in your photos is not the same as the one MM is wearing, different flower patterns and a few rows of rib stitching around the hat part of AM’s.

Yes I did think that, but the sideways view kind of made me thing that still maybe...

It could have just been crumpled.

There are also some a couple of small features on it that could be the flowers.

The proportions seem right.

by Guest 17.09.19 16:01

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

by **Tony Bennett** 17.09.19 17:27

Amelie: “Maddie's jammies! Where is Maddie?”

Did she really say this, or not?

The media report runs as follows:

QUOTE

“That was terrible for them”, says John McCann, Mr McCann's elder brother, who has also travelled to Portugal to help search for his niece. “Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: ‘Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?'. But she is too young to understand. And how do you explain? All we know is that Madeleine needs her family. She loves us, we love her. It is time for her to come home”.

UNQUOTE

I think she did say exactly that, but three senior and respected members of the forum ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) disagree.

I wish to respond and will deal with each in turn.

Before doing so, I will simply state that I do not rely on what she is supposed to have said as a ‘fact’, but I do regard it as evidence, albeit it has relatively little weight.

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

I seriously doubt Amelie said any such thing…One thing for sure - anything they said or say is there for a reason, even if by proxy….[This is] a media report. For a start, we have been assured that Madeleine was never referred to as Maddie/Maddy. From an early age children follow their parents’ manner of speaking - that's how they learn. Secondly, if Kate McCann dressed her younger daughter in the missing child's pyjamas, all I can say is she is one very sick woman…the media use quotes all the time, they are fabricated to add spice to the story. Anyone who takes the slightest notice of media reports needs to re-think, especially when plucking out specific quotes to reinforce a theory…Stick to the facts as far as possible - that totally excludes media reports”

REPLY: You dismiss this purely because it was reported in the media. You suggest the quote by John McCann has been either ‘put there [by the McCann Team] for a reason’ or ‘fabricated’ by the media. You say that ‘sticking to the facts totally excludes media reports’.

You actually completely contradict what you’ve said by quoting a media report! You wrote: “For a start, we have been assured that Madeleine was never referred to as Maddie/Maddy”. No, we haven’t. That statement came in one early media report. We have contradictory evidence that the McCanns called her Maddie. There was a comment on Facebook by Gerry McCann back in 2005 in which he appealed for volunteers to babysit for ‘Maddie’. He later wiped it. At no time since have the McCanns ever insisted that they always called her by her full name.

You wrote: “From an early age children follow their parents’ manner of speaking - that's how they learn”, implying as a fact (based on one lone media report) that Amelie must have been wrong because she is reported as saying ‘Maddie’ whereas you imply that she has been taught to say Madeleine.

On the subject of media reports, you wrote: “Anyone who takes the slightest notice of media reports needs to re-think, especially when plucking out specific quotes to reinforce a theory…Stick to the facts as far as possible - that totally excludes media reports”.

In August 2009, the Daily Mail splashed a long report:      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206842/Why-did-Madeleine-McCann-detectives-ask-questions.html

It investigated why the McCann Team did not properly investigate the claims that Madeleine was abducted on a boat in Barcelona by a Victoria Beckham lookalike. There were quotes from the harbor authorities and portside shopkeepers. Are we to ignore this quotes because they were ‘in the media’? Of course not.

Likewise, in August 2010, the Mail on Sunday splashed another significant story, this time about the fact that the McCann Team had never followed up calls to their investigation hotline:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Johan Selle, the Director of Operations at iJet, the US firm that managed the Find Madeleine phone line, was quoted by the Mail on Sunday, as follows, quote:

“Johan Selle revealed that for a year nobody even asked his company if they could listen to any of the calls received. Mr Selle said his operators, in Annapolis, Virginia, had answered 'hundreds of calls', but the information seemed wasted - possibly squandering valuable leads. He said: ‘We delivered Oakley a report with a summary of the calls and said if they wanted to come back they could listen to the recording, but nobody did. For someone with an understanding of the case it would be very easy for some to say that maybe 80 or 90 per cent of the calls were hogwash, but there may be a percentage where one would say maybe we should listen to this one or listen to that one. But our understanding is that this never took place’.”

Are we to reject this valuable information simply because it was ‘in the media’? Of course not.

Surely instead of blandly insisting: “Anyone who takes the slightest notice of media reports needs to re-think”, wouldn’t it be better to simply advise that people should exercise discretion and judgment when reading media reports. Media reports often contain very valuable information which people want to keep secret. A good example were the four media reports in late 2007 and early 2008 that informed us about the meeting at the Eveleighs’ villa in Burgau in November 2007 attended by the lawyered-up Murat family and Brian Kennedy and Edward Smethurst, which they wanted for obvious reasons to keep secret. Thank goodness for media reports of this event!

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

[John McCann’s’ comment] was one of the best "Foot in mouth" moments by a family member trying to HELP ! And like so many things said - it cannot now be un-said.

But it is not necessarily impossible. I have two nephews and a niece, all of whom had comfort blanket snugglies. Ellie was observed one day after all had been washed and hung out to dry in the sun on the line and were now in a heap in a basket in the kitchen waiting to be sorted, going through the heap and holding each one to her face before selecting 'hers'. Whether that was smell, texture, or some other thing adults no longer understand (think of Emperor penguins finding their mates and their chicks !)
we shall never know. We shall also never know whether she got the right one !

REPLY: John McCann was often described on the early Madeleine McCann forums as ‘motormouth’. He was clearly enjoying his 15 minutes of fame, and seemed to be on the TV every day in those first few weeks. I cannot agree that, as Verdi suggested, the words: ‘Maddie’s jammies! Where is Maddie?’ ‘must have been used for a reason’. They seem natural and unforced. Moreover, as I said originally, Amelie’s words tie in exactly with the hypothesis advanced by Dr Martin Roberts in ‘A Nightwear Job’, where he showed that the pyjamas that Kate McCann admits she washed on the morning of Thursday 3 May were the very pyjamas that Kate and Gerry McCann held up at two press calls on 5 and 7 June.

Jill wrote this: “Having had little grandchildren I do believe it's something Amelie would say, especially as she would have been wondering where Madeleine was…It would be very difficult for a baby/toddler to pronounce the name Madeleine and could quite possibly shorten it to Maddie. My granddaughter couldn't pronounce her own name [Imogen] and could only say 'Immy' - it's stuck and that's what everyone calls her to this day”. I very much agree with these observations.

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

John McCann said it, it's in various papers... but I'm not 100% sure Amelie at that age said what he said she said. There could be a number of reasons for that, he was being fanciful, he mis-remembered, something else... anyway Madeleine would definitely have had more than one pair of pyjamas, even on holiday. But even if she did say, it means nothing. She [had] more than one pair of pyjamas... probably more than two.
My kids certainly did.

REPLY: I cannot dispute your personal evidence, but, really, how many people would take two pairs of pyjamas on a week’s holiday for each of their children – especially when flying and you want to keep your luggage to a minimum?

Also remember we have Kate McCann’s admission that she “washed Madeleine’s pyjamas” on the morning of Thursday 3 May - allegedly because of a ‘tea stain’. She didn’t say: “I washed one of Madeleine’s two pairs of pyjamas”, did she? And if she really had got two pairs of Madeleine’s pyjamas on that holiday, would she really have washed one pair for a tea stain - with only two days of the holiday to go? I don’t think so.

The whole issue of Madeleine’s pyjamas is IMO crucial to a proper understanding of this case. So I would recommend anyone who’s not yet read Dr Roberts’ ‘A Nightwear Job’ to visit the link Jill gave upthread, and read and digest this brilliant piece of analysis.

by plebgate 17.09.19 18:47

Tony if you look up Anna Andress Wednesday 20th May 2009 she has posted a link to the Sydney Morning Herald 15th May 2007 which mentions John McCanns quote and some very good comments on the page too.

Check out the first comment on the article on 19th May 2009 at 00.51 which mentions The Mockumentary on Joana Morais site.

Very interesting posts.

by Guest 17.09.19 21:09

Tony, if you have young children you take more than one pair of pyjamas. Been there... done it... it's not unrealistic.

by **Jill Havern** 17.09.19 21:19

plebgate wrote:Tony if you look up Anna Andress Wednesday 20th May 2009 she has posted a link to the Sydney Morning Herald 15th May 2007 which mentions John McCanns quote and some very good comments on the page too.

Check out the first comment on the article on 19th May 2009 at 00.51 which mentions The Mockumentary on Joana Morais site.

Very interesting posts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Anonymous said...
And Kate said, as she was holding up the pijamas :"These are ACTUALLY the pijamas that Madeleine WAS WEARING when she disappeared" !?!
Watch it in the Mockumentary, in Joana Morais, it's just after the footage of Beckam's appeal.

19 May 2009 at 00:51
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]AnnaEsse said...
Thanks. I'll have a look at that.

19 May 2009 at 02:20
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Anonymous said...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"That was terrible for them," says John McCann, Mr McCann's elder brother, who has also travelled to Portugal to help search for his niece.

"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?' But she is too young to understand. And how do you explain? All we know is that Madeleine needs her family. She loves us, we love her. It is time for her to come home."

Amelie gave the game away that she was given Maddy's pyjamas to wear... ergo Maddy wasn't in them when she was "abducted".

Kate also claimed that Maddy spilt tea on her pyjamas & so she washed them...

the pyjamas have always bothered me

very very suspicious

20 May 2009 at 10:54
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]AnnaEsse said...
Anonymous, thank you. I've been looking for that article!

Anna

20 May 2009 at 10:59
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]AnnaEsse said...
Anonymous, it's also rather odd to start dressing her younger child immediately in the clothes of the child who has disappeared.

20 May 2009 at 11:02
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Anonymous said...
you're most welcome... I'm surprised the article is still online

I don't think John was "on message" when he mentioned this...

yes odd indeed to let Amelie wear her big sister's clothes - they would have been far too big for her. But then everything the McCann's do has a very specific reason. Obfuscation.

20 May 2009 at 11:30
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]AnnaEsse said...
Anonymous, thanks again. I have updated that post with the Sydney Morning Herald article.

Anna

20 May 2009 at 12:00
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Anonymous said...
Hi again Anna

the crimewatch photo pyjamas could very well be pinkish (I suspect they are because of Tanner's description) but the photo reproduction might not an accurate colour-graded photo.

The point is that Tanner would certainly not have known they were pink. She would not have been able to make out their colour (due to street lighting) or that they had frills... (too far away)

I'm still baffled by their original timeline that they gave to the PJ, drawn up that night (including Tanner's sighting) but that she apparently didn't tell the McCann's until the next day.

but then all their stories are over elaborate and that is one of the things that gives them away.

20 May 2009 at 12:53

by **crusader** 17.09.19 21:45

If Jane Tanner believes she saw someone carrying a girl on the night Madeleine went missing, then she can reassure herself that it was not Madeleine. For one thing the pyjama bottoms would only have reached her knee. The whole of the bottom of the child's legs would be on show. And as I stated in one of my first post's, the eyore patch on the right leg would have been fully visable if the pyjama bottoms reached her ankle. Tanner said the pyjama bottoms had a frill around the ankle so the child she saw could not have been Madeleine.