Dr Martin Roberts - 'A Nightwear Job'

My thoughts off the top of my head.

Damp PJs, not necessarily damp. Looks like they've been ironed as flat as possible to appear larger.

One pair of PJs each like one toothbrush each except....

Blood stain on PJs,  where you'd need a little brush to scrub the dried blood.

All that was reqired to get rid of w blood stain is to put plenty of salt into warm water and soak, then soap and rub, no problem at all.  It seems this subject was to keep us all getting into it over again.  joyce1938

Tony Bennett wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:Uncle John said to the Sydney Morning Herald on 15th May 2007, "Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas..."

(Found on Anna Andress blog, 20th May 2009).

The full quotation from the Sydney Morning Herald is as follows:

QUOTE

As the family waited fearfully for news, they faced the agonising reality of trying to explain to their toddler twins why their big sister was no longer there.

"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..."

UNQUOTE


Did Amelie suss the whole situation better than anyone else?

Was she really 'too young' to understand???

When my husband died I had a friend, a clinical psychologist, who worked with very young children and their traumatic experiences. My kids were 18 and 8 months respectively. She warned me even at that age they "know" (probably more "feel") the difference between dead or just away on a trip. The oldest one (18 mnths) stopped speaking when her daddy died. She did not speak for 6-7 mnths, not even gibberish, while she was an unstoppable motor mouth before. Than one night at the table all at the sudden she said in Dutch: "my father is dead, "hardstikke - a very Dutch word for very VERY" dead. She was at about the twins age then, so when she stopped speaking she was half a year younger than the twins.  They know, kids know, kids "know" much more than we realize. I never understood why they did not bring in an expert in the psychology of the very young to see if the twins did know something. Or rather I do understand, they were scared like hell the twins did know something, and rightly so.

Amazing how the twins simultaneously could and couldn't talk isn't it?

Clothes based on a specific age range can be a bit hit and miss as children rarely follow a sizing norm.
As Martin rightly points out, when it comes to buying clothes for children, parents buy to fit and allow for a little extra growing room in order that the child gets to wear it for more than a couple of weeks.More so when money is a bit tight

Some may be wearing clothes are are a couple of ages bigger, IE, a 3 year old wearing clothes meant for a 5 year old or a 3 year old wearing clothes meant for a 2 year old.
Clothes sizes can also vary due to type of material, how they are cut (as with adult clothes some can be cut giving a generous size and others can be a smaller size and less forgiving.
M&S are generous in their cuts so a size 14 lady can perhaps get into a a size 12 or even a 10 (very good and a happy lady) whereas, a designer item could be skimpy on the cut and a a size 14 lady would need an 18.(very bad and an unhappy lady)
These things matter to us ladies.



According to kate's statement

10-PROCESSO 10 VOLUME Xa (Pages 2539 to 2551)
Kate Marie Healy's statement 06/09/07 @ 3.00pm

TRANSLATIONS BY CARMERINA32

KATE MARIE HEALY ' STATEMENT
(from DVD)

September 6/2007 3pm at Portimao

On May 3 they all woke between 7;30 and 8:00 AM; doesn't know who woke first. They washed the children and had breakfast at the apartment between 08:00 and 08:30 AM. Food bought by her and Gerry at Baptista supermarket. Previously they'd had breakfast at the Millenium, but as it was so far they'd decided to have breakfast at the apartment. During breakfast the 'crying episode', already described, took place. She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning. She hung it to dry on a small stand, and it was dry by the afternoon. Madeleine sometimes drank tea; 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 important little bit is this

During breakfast the 'crying episode', already described, took place. She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning.
Now this was allegedly what happened during breakfast may 3rd.

Looking at the picture of the pajamas at the top of this post, there is a clear stain on the neck of the pajama top which could be from spilled tea.
On the front of the neck in line with the gap at the back of the collar

Now, as pointed out above, why would someone, nay anyone, take a photograph of a pair of pajamas showing a 'tea stain'
What parent sees a stain on the clothing of their child and decides
"Oh i must photograph it for posterity.
Another one for the family album"

Unless it is something spectacular perhaps forming the face of a dead family member, Jesus or anything else relating to people, known as face pareidolia
Perhaps she took the photo in order to make a claim on a faulty item and demanding a refund, although why not take said item back to the store on discovering the stain on arrival at home?

There is simply no reason to take a photo given the above scenarios.

On the other hand, there is ample reason to take a photo if it will later be presented as an exhibit to the media and public.
There is ample reason to take a photo if there is an intent to deceive.

Why though would innocent parents go through all the rigmarole if they had no involvement in the disappearance' of their daughter?
The thought wouldn't even cross their mind.

Guilty people however do things like this to either show evidence they could not have done such a crime, to mislead those investigating the alleged crime, to muddy the waters.
They would do so to preempt something else.

It could be claimed that these were not in fact Maddie's rather they were Amelie's.

How then would both Maddie and Amelie have tea stains on their pajama tops?

Kate told us that on the morning of may 3rd she noticed a tea stain on Maddie's pajama top.

She makes no mention of a similar stain being on Amelie's top.
However, kate  tells us "these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken."

Now, if kate is telling the truth, and i have to assume she is,

How could they be Maddie's since she would have been wearing them when 'abducted'.

If Maddie had been wearing a different pair of pajamas then the question would not have arisen since kate and gerry would be holding up a different pair of pajamas, the ones similar/identical to the ones Maddie was wearing when she was 'abducted'

If these were Maddie's why were they not 'abducted' along with Maddie since she was wearing them?

Did the alleged abductor waste precious seconds taking her pajamas off?
If so, where were they located when kate 'discovered' Maddie was missing?
How come no one noticed these pajamas lying in situ?
How come these were not handed over as evidence to the PJ who could then do all the usual forensic tests to find out what happened and perhaps who did it?

Were these actually abducted and the pink blanket left behind and said abductor managed to sneak back into the apartment which, presumably would be filled with police, the family and anyone else remotely involved, remove Maddie's pink blanket and return her pajamas all without being seen, heard or leaving any evidence of their existence?

Out of their own mouths comes ample evidence that Maddie is dead.
They knew she was dead from the get go of the 'alleged abduction.
They were involved in her death as were possibly one or more of the tapas men since no mention has been made of the ladies doing the alleged checks on the children.
This also means they and at least one or more of the tapas 7 took action to conceal Maddie's body and then file a false police report.

In the following years, the mccanns and chums have also committed fraud on a grand scale in relation to the fund and also to claiming and winning damages against various media.

Keep talking chums, the more you speak the more you leak.
The more you leak, the closer the PJ will be to nailing your sorry asses for homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report.

The PJ may also press charges against the group and the various family members who showed up and made full use of the amenities at little to no cost to themselves, obtaining money and services by deception.

In the meantime SY would, and should go ahead with prosecuting the mccanns and chums as well as clarrie for fraud, obtaining money and services by deception and anything else to do with the fund.
Those involved in creating the fund (seriously £37000?)and running it.

I would also be interested to know if the States could also join in the fun and charge them with wire fraud, money donated to them via their website (darn that $ PayPal button
I then wonder that, when the stuff hits the fan and the tapas 6 (i don't think Diane Webster was awarded damages) are facing prosecution regarding the damages and are required to pay it all back along with interest and court costs, if they will demand the mccanns return the money the group so generously donated to the fund in order to make their own repayments along with court costs etc.

Could it get to a stage where the mccanns get sued by the tapas 7, their former alibis, allies and friends?
Could it then end up with the mccanns suing the tapas7?

Could clarrie decide he is missing out and sue the mccanns?

Could the mccanns then end up suing clarrie for dropping them right in it when he opened mouth and inserted feet?

It could get quite interesting as well as messy once the infighting and blame game starts.

"So these are actually, apart from the size and the button on the back which Madeleine's doesn't have, these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken."
So is used to explain why something is/happened.
It answers the unasked question the subject expects will be asked.

Kate slips up here by not telling us these are identical or similar to the pyjamas Maddie was wearing, she instead tells us the pyjamas are the ones Maddie was wearing when allegedly abducted.
She uses the word actually which is a word indicating comparison between 2 or more items.

IE, I like vanilla ice cream, actually i like chocolate more.

This is also a sensitive statement since she uses the word actually twice.

The problem kate has is she twice tells us these are Maddie's pajamas whilst at the same time contradicting herself and telling us apart from the size and the button on the back.

As has been rightly pointed out, how can these be the pajamas Maddie was wearing when she was abducted when, presumably, said self same pajamas would have been abducted along with Maddie since she was wearing them.

Either Maddie was wearing them the night she was allegedly abducted, in which case: How did the mccanns come across her pajamas?
When did they come across them?
Where did they find them?
Why were they not immediately handed to the PJ for testing and a fingertip search of the area conducted?

Or.

Kate and gerry removed the pajamas from Maddie's corpse before disposing of her.

Or
kate and gerry are outright lying about what Maddie was wearing that night, in which case why the need to lie about something trivial unless. of course, there is something which was seen or found that would incriminate them.

With the mccanns it is always look over there not here, or look over here not over there.
There is a need to distract.

As an aside.

Eddie reacted to a child's red t shirt.
WHY would a child's t shirt be contaminated with cadaverine?

More importantly, HOW could a child's t shirt be contaminated by cadaverine?

Cross contamination perhaps if it was packed with other clothing (kate's pants) contaminated with cadaverine.

Why then only that item, along with kate's pants and no other items in the case?

Did kate take the t shirt to work with her alongside cuddlecat and got contaminated the same way that cuddlecat did  and kate's pants (allegedly according to Sue healy)

The obvious conclusion is that the t shirt came into direct contact with the cadaver. Maddie's lifeless body.
Either Maddie injured herself and died accidentally and for whatever reason happened to land on said t shirt or, and i am taking a big leap of judgement here, Maddie was actually wearing said T shirt.
A T shirt then later claimed to belong to Sean perhaps, or it was Sean's and Maddie at some point  was wearing it.

Why though was it removed from Maddie's corpse?
Was she wearing it as a pajama top perhaps?
Or, more likely, was she wearing it during the day and died due to nefarious deeds of a dastardly nature?
Since the claim Maddie was abducted at night from her bed, questions would be asked why she was wearing a t shirt as opposed to pajamas?
Yes, they could have claimed she liked it so much she wore it at night, however, muddled and panicked thinking may have been they have to show she died at night, thus claiming she was wearing pajamas.

T shirt is day wear, Pajamas are night wear

It probably made sense to them at the time.


http://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/

Above the Eeyore on the top, there appear to be some letters-can anyone explain what they are?

lj wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:Uncle John said to the Sydney Morning Herald on 15th May 2007, "Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas..."

(Found on Anna Andress blog, 20th May 2009).

The full quotation from the Sydney Morning Herald is as follows:

QUOTE

As the family waited fearfully for news, they faced the agonising reality of trying to explain to their toddler twins why their big sister was no longer there.

"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..."

UNQUOTE


Did Amelie suss the whole situation better than anyone else?

Was she really 'too young' to understand???

When my husband died I had a friend, a clinical psychologist, who worked with very young children and their traumatic experiences. My kids were 18 and 8 months respectively. She warned me even at that age they "know" (probably more "feel") the difference between dead or just away on a trip. The oldest one (18 mnths) stopped speaking when her daddy died. She did not speak for 6-7 mnths, not even gibberish, while she was an unstoppable motor mouth before. Than one night at the table all at the sudden she said in Dutch: "my father is dead, "hardstikke - a very Dutch word for very VERY" dead. She was at about the twins age then, so when she stopped speaking she was half a year younger than the twins.  They know, kids know, kids "know" much more than we realize. I never understood why they did not bring in an expert in the psychology of the very young to see if the twins did know something. Or rather I do understand, they were scared like hell the twins did know something, and rightly so.

But if the twins were sedated so much that they didn't wake up through all the commotion, how would they know anything that went on? They couldn't possibly have seen anything surely?

I suppose they were sedated so that the hoax abduction could be carried out without them witnessing anything.

worriedmum wrote:


Above the Eeyore on the top, there appear to be some letters-can anyone explain what they are?

I can make out an A and DD but nothing else. Re this stain. Where on the top was it?

It looks like it could be 'MADO...' something something.

Can't be certain it's not pareidolia but zooming in and out it looks like SM to me, could be an imprint on the inside since they're M&S ones?

The writing has been discussed on Dr Martin's blog comments:

Anonymous said...

Dr. Roberts - are you suggesting that the photo released 10th May and published by The Telegraph was taken on a plain blue open weave sofa and could have been still wet, having just been washed? As suggested on Candyfloss form, this maybe explains the upper case print seen above Eeyore`s back - an .ALKT.. and the rows of lower case print below. You have to enlarge the photo to see it. Is that also the tea stain shown at the neckline, that KM is supposed to have tried to wash out one morning (I forget which morning).

Gertrude

  11 March 2016 at 14:04


Seems a bit more visible here:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BXMyj6Yknsg/VuAp3oO6b-I/AAAAAAAAsBo/uVDT_XL5SEo/s1600/madjam_468x695.jpg

Lazz has blogged her views on this:

http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Hand-Me-Down_.html

Before retiring from this thread once and for all, I happened upon Kate McCann's inimitable words that I mentioned upthread..

You may be wondering not only what relevance all these minute details might have to anything, but also how I can recall them so distinctly and how accurate my recollections can possibly be. The answer is that, within a couple of days, every single apparently inconsequential thing that happened on that holiday would become vitally important, and Gerry and I would soon be painstakingly trying to extract from our brains every tiny incident, no matter how small, that might have been significant.


Armed with notebook, pen and dated photographs, I would be challenging myself to piece together as comprehensive an outline of the sequence of events as I could. The regular routines of the week helped to make any deviations from them stand out and undoubtedly made this easier.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN


"There is a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found."

Clarence Mitchell

Doug D wrote:Lazz has blogged her views on this:

http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Hand-Me-Down_.html

This part of Lazz's blog is beyond hilarious!
Thank you Lazz, you've made my day!

worriedmum wrote:


Above the Eeyore on the top, there appear to be some letters-can anyone explain what they are?

  Is it part of a phrase that says 'Ocado' ?

I don't shop at Ocado but maybe someone who does could say?


Could there be a plastic bag inserted between the two layers of the top?  I have done this myself when I have wanted to dry something-you can smooth it out whilst damp and it looks ironed. You can then blow-dry with a hairdrier to speed it up...

https://mobile.twitter.com/Syn0nymph/status/709108390841225220

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Syn0nymph/status/709108390841225220

He took several photos: http://www.corbisimages.com/Search#pg=luis+forra&p=7

The pyjamas aren't listed there, however the quality of the photo on the police site is much better than what we've been looking at. The letters really stand out now, I can definitely see 'ADD'.



Also if taken on 05/05 then the conjecture about them being damp is probably wrong.

Martin Roberts said...

Reggie @09:51

"I think the key point is that the jim-jams the McCanns were taking around Europe were Madeleine's, not Amelie's. And you have to wonder why they would do that."

The media response answers that question.

"Re Mr Forra, I'm guessing he had some hand in the cataloguing process for whatever agency, but as for standing in front of the pyjamas with his camera at the ready, then maybe not."

'Most likely' in answer to (a). 'Most likely NOT' in answer to (b)



Martin Roberts said...

Just in case anyone should be wondering about Mr Luis Forra and the lady who "proved categorically that Forra took that photo for the PJ", the same gentleman is on the data record as:

1. Taking pictures at different locations, but at EXACTLY the same time.

2. Taking daylight photographs - at 11.00 p.m.

3. Taking photographs at an event FIVE DAYS before it actually took place.

And

4. Photographing Madeleine McCann (age 2)!

The man's not a photographer, he's a magician. (He also copies other peoples images btw).

Taken from comments section http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-nightwear-job-by-dr-martin-roberts.html

Thanks Hobs for face pareidolia!  Been coming here for years now, it's true, you learn something new every day!!

Martin Roberts said...


Forra was credited with having taken a portrait of a very young Madeleine McCann wearing her polka dot dress, on 4 May, something he can only have achieved by copying an image that existed beforehand (on missing person leaflets being distributed in Praia da Luz as it happens). No other explanation is possible.

For whatever reason, the data in relation to Luis Forra's initial efforts regarding the McCann disappearance, and represented at EPA, are TOTALLY UNRELIABLE. Being hoovered up by EXIF, or whatever other analytical tool does not camouflage the fact.

The safer conclusion by far therefore is not that 'Luis Forra took the (original) photograph on 5 May' but that he registered a COPY of an original with the agency (EPA) on some indeterminate date, the original of course being in existence already. REST SNIPPED


Martin Roberts said...

Nuala @00:19

Not another one!

Have you read my explanation above, or do you think 'validity' is like turning up at Wimbledon without a ticket and expecting to be given a seat because you've 'come a long way'?

Denise became gratuitously obnoxious once it was pointed out to her that the information she had unearthed was unreliable. She even produced her own evidence of that (Read the photo caption for yourself: "Photo released by Portuguese police 4th May 2007 of the three year old British girl Madeleine McCann...blah, blah EPA/LUIS FORRA EDITORIAL USE ONLY").

She has since been quite full of herself as having 'proved' that Forra took the photograph in question, for the PJ no less, without giving a moment's thought to the obvious - that NO police force would invite a freelance paparazzo to record EVIDENCE for them.

If you're that concerned with getting at the truth, perhaps you, Denise, and whoever it is who signs themselves as 'Pseudo Nym', should stop being irrational and look more carefully before you leap in future.


http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-nightwear-job-by-dr-martin-roberts.html

Martin Roberts said...

Tony Bennett has commented elsewhere that I 'claim to have solved the 'tea stain' riddle', when I made no such claim. I did not even use the words!

However, maybe, just maybe, we've been staring all this time at the real answer to what that 'tea-stain' nonsense was about. Maybe the stain wasn't tea (or blood, or other DNA laden fluid) but INK.

If you plan to photograph and display a pair of pyjamas you propose to call Amelie's, the world won't be terribly convinced if they can read 'Maddie' across the front of them!

Now that we can be reasonably sure the McCanns were responsible for the pyjama photographs and, whether by proxy or on their own initiative, planned the media exposure, there would have been every reason for seeking to wash out an inappropriate name stencilled on the t-shirt (in just about the position supposedly occupied by a large brown stain).

http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-nightwear-job-by-dr-martin-roberts.html

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Martin Roberts said...

   Tony Bennett has commented elsewhere that I 'claim to have solved the 'tea stain' riddle', when I made no such claim. I did not even use the words!

   However, maybe, just maybe, we've been staring all this time at the real answer to what that 'tea-stain' nonsense was about. Maybe the stain wasn't tea (or blood, or other DNA laden fluid) but INK.

   If you plan to photograph and display a pair of pyjamas you propose to call Amelie's, the world won't be terribly convinced if they can read 'Maddie' across the front of them!

   Now that we can be reasonably sure the McCanns were responsible for the pyjama photographs and, whether by proxy or on their own initiative, planned the media exposure, there would have been every reason for seeking to wash out an inappropriate name stencilled on the t-shirt (in just about the position supposedly occupied by a large brown stain).

http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-nightwear-job-by-dr-martin-roberts.html

Oh well, maybe I should have said that Martin Roberts 'nearly solved the tea stain riddle'.

But maybe he has now.

His new 'solution' is very interesting

But why would you write 'Maddie' on the front of Maddie's pyjama's in INK, especially when they didn't call her Maddie? Why not just write 'Maddie' on the inside label rather than spoil the material with ink?

Wouldn't the size of the jammies tell Kate that they were Maddie's jammies? 

If Amelie and Maddie had the same jammies they would be different sizes.  Amelie could obviously tell the difference.

Confused.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Martin Roberts said...

   Tony Bennett has commented elsewhere that I 'claim to have solved the 'tea stain' riddle', when I made no such claim. I did not even use the words!

   However, maybe, just maybe, we've been staring all this time at the real answer to what that 'tea-stain' nonsense was about. Maybe the stain wasn't tea (or blood, or other DNA laden fluid) but INK.

   If you plan to photograph and display a pair of pyjamas you propose to call Amelie's, the world won't be terribly convinced if they can read 'Maddie' across the front of them!

   Now that we can be reasonably sure the McCanns were responsible for the pyjama photographs and, whether by proxy or on their own initiative, planned the media exposure, there would have been every reason for seeking to wash out an inappropriate name stencilled on the t-shirt (in just about the position supposedly occupied by a large brown stain).

http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-nightwear-job-by-dr-martin-roberts.html

Oh well, maybe I should have said that Martin Roberts 'nearly solved the tea stain riddle'.

But maybe he has now.

His new 'solution' is very interesting

As mentioned by another poster, it does look like an A and DD  is visible. 
Rather than "ink" is it not more likely that "sew on" or "iron on" letters were used to personalise the pajamas?

Perhaps this is the remaining outline after their removal, and the "tea" was used stain the area, to hide colour fading where the letters once resided.