Re: Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'

by Nina 12.03.16 19:12

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:So if Kate dressed Amelie in Maddie's jammies (who wasn't called Maddie) then what was Maddie wearing? The peach top and broderie anglaise shorts?

Certainly not this pair of pyjamas. So did the parents take a change of night clothes for each of their children in case of accident and this pair is the remaining pair?

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 12.03.16 19:16

And why did the McCann's take a photo of Maddie's jammies? Who goes on holiday to take a photo of their future-missing child's jammies? A mother who goes on holiday and washes the curtains I suppose. The curtains that just happened to drape behind the sofa where the dogs alerted.

Did they take a photo of Amelie's jammies too? Or Sean's jammies?

And could the tea stain have been dried blood that Kate was trying to wash out?

by Verdi 12.03.16 20:36

I've read the article three times but I'm still none the wiser, I really wish at times if someone has got something of interest to impart they would cut to the chase, leaving out the verbiage. Reading comments here, I see a glimmer of light but if I'm woofing up the wrong tree, a simpletons guide to pyjamas would be helpful.

If I'm getting the general gist I have one question to ask - why would the McCanns photograph and/or present the 'actual' pyjamas worn by Madeleine on the night she disappeared? Wouldn't that be a trifle risky?

Correct me if I'm wrong, the first time the stained pyjama top was mentioned was during Kate McCanns police interview on 6th September 2007 when it was documented..

On the 3rd of May they all woke up between 7.30 and 8.00 a.m.... She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine’s pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning. She hung it out to dry on a small stand, and it was dry by the afternoon. Madeleine sometimes drank tea; nevertheless the stain did not appear during breakfast, maybe it happened another day, as Madeleine did not have tea the previous night and the stain was dry.

If Madeleine was wearing a particular pair of pyjamas on the night of the 3rd (or any other night for that matter), wouldn't they have disappeared along with the body? If not on the body, there are easy ways of disposal, they had their group of friends on hand and enough visitors in the aftermath of her disappearance - they never found what Gerry McCann was wearing that night did they? The article states 'Only the Payne's apartment incorporated any soft furnishings in blue, but of a different quality to the plain open-weave material on display here' but here is an image of apartment 5A occupied by the McCanns which looks very blue to me..

Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job' - Page 2 Article-2026531-022B289200000578-87_468x310

Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job' - Page 2 Article-2026531-022B289200000578-87_468x310

I'm inclined to think the stained pyjama top is a red hearing planted as yet another innocent explanation for anything the police may or may not find. There is no proof that it even existed - only KM's word and she hasn't shown herself to be the most reliable purveyor of truth. As I say, if I'm being thicker than usual please somebody explain.

@Nina wrote: Because pyjamas make you think of bed, night time. So we are brainwashed into the story that Madeleine was taken from a bed,in pyjamas and at night time.

Good thinking - that's no doubt where this pyjama saga begins and ends. There doesn't appear to be any other tangible reason for the parents carting around kids pyjamas for the benefit of the police and media.

by Guest 12.03.16 20:43

Misdirection. Like the tea stain story, excusing sterilisation. I suspect a little gloating by this point.

by Verdi 12.03.16 20:59

April28th wrote:Misdirection. Like the tea stain story, excusing sterilisation. I suspect a little gloating by this point.

Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job' - Page 2 Mccannspyjamasberlin2small

As I think I said before, looks like they're selling some tacky merchandise on a shopping channel - good quality kiddies pyjamas with eeyore motif (or should that be motive?)..

Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job' - Page 2 Eeyore-1

Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job' - Page 2 Eeyore-1

Woe woe and thrice woe..

by whodunit 12.03.16 21:02

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:So if Kate dressed Amelie in Maddie's jammies (who wasn't called Maddie) then what was Maddie wearing? The peach top and broderie anglaise shorts, wrapped in a pink blanket and stuffed inside a blue bag?

Was Maddie's Last Photo outfit given to the police or the sniffer dogs?

I'm wondering the same. Where is this outfit? Is it in evidence?

by whodunit 12.03.16 21:12

Who hand washes pajama tops? A delicate article of clothing, perhaps, one you don't want ruined with a tea stain, but pajamas? Why bother? Just toss it in the wash along with the curtains..

these people don't seem to understand what sounds normal to other people. It's like they live far above or far beneath the ordinary concerns of most people. Like Gerry mentioning on his blog how this one morning the kids got 'clean nappies' and everyone else got a shower. It goes without saying that little kids who aren't potty trained yet will get clean nappies when they need them, but the way he wrote it makes it sound like Sean and Amelie's nappies are changed on a schedule. It's like he doesn't know this is something people don't need to mention. And the words both of them put in their kid's mouths often sound bizarre and unbelievable, yet they don't seem to understand how to make it sound plausible. It's like they barely have day to day contact with their own children.

by canada12 12.03.16 21:15

On the 3rd of May they all woke up between 7.30 and 8.00 a.m.... She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine’s pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning. She hung it out to dry on a small stand, and it was dry by the afternoon. Madeleine sometimes drank tea; nevertheless the stain did not appear during breakfast, maybe it happened another day, as Madeleine did not have tea the previous night and the stain was dry.

The logic of this eludes me. Are we supposed to believe that Kate didn't notice the tea stain previous to this? Not very observant, is she? Wouldn't she have noticed the tea stain on the night of the 2nd, when she was putting Madeleine to bed? Why did she only notice it in the morning? This makes no sense whatsoever.

ETA - and how the hell did she know it was tea?

by whodunit 12.03.16 21:21

canada12 wrote:On the 3rd of May they all woke up between 7.30 and 8.00 a.m.... She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine’s pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning. She hung it out to dry on a small stand, and it was dry by the afternoon. Madeleine sometimes drank tea; nevertheless the stain did not appear during breakfast, maybe it happened another day, as Madeleine did not have tea the previous night and the stain was dry.

The logic of this eludes me. Are we supposed to believe that Kate didn't notice the tea stain previous to this? Not very observant, is she? Wouldn't she have noticed the tea stain on the night of the 2nd, when she was putting Madeleine to bed? Why did she only notice it in the morning? This makes no sense whatsoever.

ETA - and how the hell did she know it was tea?

It almost sounds like she is trying, extremely laboriously and without the slightest plausibility, to imply a stealth abductor snuck in during the night and spilled tea *or something more sinister* on dear Madeleine's top.

by Guest 12.03.16 21:22

As a guess, maybe not tea but a 'medicine' stain.

by Guest 12.03.16 21:25

Or blood.

by Guest 12.03.16 21:28

I vote that regardless whether those were her pyjamas or not, the tea stain itself is a needless story, it's an unnecessary embellishment, designed to misdirect, at a point where they still had that ability in Portugal. Like how Tanner 'seeing someone walking in the road' meant searches focus in the opposite direction.

by Guest 12.03.16 21:45

I agree with Verdi up-thread that claiming it was a tea stain would be an innocent explanation of what the police might or might not find.

by worriedmum 12.03.16 22:13

If you look at the photograph of the pyjamas it appears there is lettering above the image of Eeyore on the pyjama top. It's not part of the pyjamas-can anyone else see this?

by JRP 12.03.16 22:28

From what I read, and like Verdi, I've read the post 3 times. The pajamas are the tea stained pair which were Maddie's. Some think the tea stain isn't tea, but blood, which expains why they were washed.
They are photographed on a blue background, a colour which was only found in 5a. As they moved to another apartment after the alarm was raised on the night of the 3rd, the photo must have been taken before that night.
So, why would someone photograph pajamas?

Is that along the right track?

by Guest 12.03.16 22:32

So let's count again, now we have:

1 set of amelie's look-a-like maddies eyore jammies.

1 set of tea stained madeleines jammies,
that maybe became later the 'maddie's jammies' as citation from amelie to dear john. Or would that be another pair of jammies on the go.

Then we got 1 set of jane tanners pseudo-abductor, but of course not creche dad, madeleine jammies on the go, with the pseudo abducted maddie, without that eyore thingy on the leg, but with the frills.

but didn't we have also that pair of maddies jammies that was responsible for contamination of a certain renault car, you know the one that shed bodily fluids, bits of hair and some maybe not or maybe true dna from madeleine, you know from the second or first report of the other dear john from the little cells company.

But we could also have one set of jammies directly send from marks and spencers to the pj, and a unknown pair on a picture on a blue piece of cloth from 8 may 2007.

that means there have been a whole lot of jammies around, because for shedding bodily fluids and dna from the unwashed maddie jammies to the boot of a certain renault, i do expect to believe they would have been on a certain dead body at first. Living children do not shed such an amount of bodily fluids with dna in it that you want another child to sleep in it. but he, it could be just something normal for the brittish parents with a medical degree.

but there must also have been a different set of smith family jammies with the long sleeves and of course the now a bit derelict creche dad's child jammies.

Plus 3 sets of erm..., ehh, oef...,angelic white jammies from the payne observation.

And still they had to do the laundry, yeah,….emmm,....erm, uch, auch...!

o, dear, i forgot, there are also at least one set of maddies jammies that kate lays out on the bed for when madeleine was found. that could be a pair from the ones already counting in the list, but, he who knows for sure! spin

how many of those jammies have been there?

by Guest 12.03.16 22:43

@onehand don't forget to factor in the many cuddle cats (well, at least Metodo3 could say their room was 'busy')!

by Verdi 12.03.16 23:42

Ladyinred wrote:I agree with Verdi up-thread that claiming it was a tea stain would be an innocent explanation of what the police might or might not find.

Apropos of Kate McCann's documented comment (which I can't find at the moment) about the importance of remembering and recording every little detail of events for some, at the time, unspecified reason - the following is extracted from 'madeleine' by KATE MCCANN. Or some may say Exhibit A a la legalese. Or in plain speak, the innocent explanation for anything and everything the police might find..

...My journal was also to prove invaluable when Gerry and I later felt it necessary to quash claims made about where we were and what we were doing at various times. Now it has been pressed into service once more as the basis for much of this book...

...It has enabled me to recall with clarity my innermost reflections at periods when my whole life was clouded by despair, and it is the reason why I have been able, four years down the line, to be so precise about the timings of particular events.

...The only other unexplained detail I remember from that morning was a large, brown stain I noticed on Madeleine’s pink Eeyore pyjama top. I couldn’t recall seeing it the night before and I had no idea how it might have got there. It looked like a tea stain. Gerry and I do drink quite a bit of tea, and Madeleine, too, would have the odd small cup. So at the time I just assumed it was a drink spillage that had escaped our attention, and that might well be all it was. But now, of course, we can no longer make assumptions about anything that can’t be accounted for...

...Here is another of those vivid, now cherished memories: Madeleine, in her Eeyore pyjamas, sitting on my lap and cuddling in – something of which she was especially fond when she was tired. We were on one of the two blue sofas, the one facing the patio doors...

Add to that Gerry McCann's well documented comment...

And, in fact, one of the slight positives in... in all of this is that there is so much rumour about what did and didn't happen, it's actually very difficult, if you're reading the newspapers, watching TV, to know what is true and what's not."

Smoke and mirrors.

by Verdi 12.03.16 23:46

whodunit wrote:Who hand washes pajama tops? A delicate article of clothing, perhaps, one you don't want ruined with a tea stain, but pajamas? Why bother? Just toss it in the wash along with the curtains..

these people don't seem to understand what sounds normal to other people. It's like they live far above or far beneath the ordinary concerns of most people. Like Gerry mentioning on his blog how this one morning the kids got 'clean nappies' and everyone else got a shower. It goes without saying that little kids who aren't potty trained yet will get clean nappies when they need them, but the way he wrote it makes it sound like Sean and Amelie's nappies are changed on a schedule. It's like he doesn't know this is something people don't need to mention. And the words both of them put in their kid's mouths often sound bizarre and unbelievable, yet they don't seem to understand how to make it sound plausible. It's like they barely have day to day contact with their own children.

Especially only hours before they were due to return to the UK. nah

by Verdi 12.03.16 23:55

onehand wrote:So let's count again, now we have:

1 set of amelie's look-a-like maddies eyore jammies.

1 set of tea stained madeleines jammies,
that maybe became later the 'maddie's jammies' as citation from amelie to dear john. Or would that be another pair of jammies on the go.

Then we got 1 set of jane tanners pseudo-abductor, but of course not creche dad, madeleine jammies on the go, with the pseudo abducted maddie, without that eyore thingy on the leg, but with the frills.

but didn't we have also that pair of maddies jammies that was responsible for contamination of a certain renault car, you know the one that shed bodily fluids, bits of hair and some maybe not or maybe true dna from madeleine, you know from the second or first report of the other dear john from the little cells company.

But we could also have one set of jammies directly send from marks and spencers to the pj, and a unknown pair on a picture on a blue piece of cloth from 8 may 2007.

that means there have been a whole lot of jammies around, because for shedding bodily fluids and dna from the unwashed maddie jammies to the boot of a certain renault, i do expect to believe they would have been on a certain dead body at first. Living children do not shed such an amount of bodily fluids with dna in it that you want another child to sleep in it. but he, it could be just something normal for the brittish parents with a medical degree.

but there must also have been a different set of smith family jammies with the long sleeves and of course the now a bit derelict creche dad's child jammies.

Plus 3 sets of erm..., ehh, oef...,angelic white jammies from the payne observation.

And still they had to do the laundry, yeah,….emmm,....erm, uch, auch...!

o, dear, i forgot, there are also at least one set of maddies jammies that kate lays out on the bed for when madeleine was found. that could be a pair from the ones already counting in the list, but, he who knows for sure!

how many of those jammies have been there?

Bananas in pajamas are coming down the stairs,
Bananas in pajamas are coming down in pairs,
Bananas in pajamas are chasing teddy bears,
'cos on Tuesdays they all try to catch them unawares!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0XNR1fY6mc

by Grande Finale 13.03.16 2:44

Verdi wrote:I've read the article three times but I'm still none the wiser, I really wish at times if someone has got something of interest to impart they would cut to the chase, leaving out the verbiage. Reading comments here, I see a glimmer of light but if I'm woofing up the wrong tree, a simpletons guide to pyjamas would be helpful.

OK *allegedly*

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.
(Answers on a postcard please to Ms Wall Operation Grange SY)

by HelenMeg 13.03.16 11:38

Good Summary Grande Finale!

KM took NO photographs after the last Photo (2.59 3rd May) allegedly! -

who says?Did Kate say this? If so, is it really likely to be true? If Kate has stressed she took no photos after the supposed last photo then we would be silly
not to wonder if she said it for a reason... Maybe the reason she said that was to cover up the fact that she took a photo of the wet jammies

by Guest 13.03.16 11:46

I'd have to think, assuming this all being correct, that the photo would've come from a camera not materially attached to them.

by joyce1938 13.03.16 12:26

Don't understand why we are assuming that one pair of PJs were wet on the settee. Surely they would have been put out on the drier if that wet. joyce1938

by Verdi 13.03.16 12:35

Grande Finale wrote:
Verdi wrote:I've read the article three times but I'm still none the wiser, I really wish at times if someone has got something of interest to impart they would cut to the chase, leaving out the verbiage. Reading comments here, I see a glimmer of light but if I'm woofing up the wrong tree, a simpletons guide to pyjamas would be helpful.

OK *allegedly*

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.
(Answers on a postcard please to Ms Wall Operation Grange SY)

Thank you for taking the trouble - I'm impressed that you stress the word *allegedly*. I can see this issue going the same way as the last photograph and the wayback machine - unless of course Dr Robert's article is intended to be a satirical pyjamarama.

From documented evidence it is widely known that the McCann parents, nor their friends and visiting family, were NOT in a state of total shutdown.

Maybe I misunderstood the bit about the blue upholstery, he could have meant that apart from the McCanns, only the Paynes apartment had blue soft furnishings.

Kate McCann said she washed the top - not the top and bottom.

Kate McCanns police interviews, detailing their movements on 3rd, make no allowances for this washing episode.

As I said up-thread, who would be so stupid as to photograph and show before the world, Madeleine's eeyore pyjamas she was supposed to be wearing when abducted?

Nah I'm not convinced. I still see this pyjama trail as a massive publicity stunt, orchestrated through the auspices of one Clarence Mitchell, then UK government head of media monitoring. For the purposes of media interviews and press photoshoots, the pyjamas used could have come from anywhere - what better way of tugging at the public heartstrings and purses than to use Madeleine's siblings.

I'll stick with Nina's comments up-thread - simpler explanation the better, at least for this simpleton.