Friday, March 18, 2016

A Nightwear Job by Dr Martin Roberts Extended Comments


NEW RULES!

Chose a nickname from now on if you don't have a Google/Twitter ID.

No nickname, no comment.

Previous Comments & Post

Tania Cadogan: Ponderings On Those Famous Pajamas And That Stain

Tania Cadogan blogspot

85 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good morning

In my opinion it's not what Kate said, but why she said it. Why explicitly mentioned? Who cares that she hadn't been able to use the camera since she took that last photograph of Madeleine?

Regards,

Maren

Himself said...

Good morning dearheart

Who cares about a lot of things?

Care or not, we are always treated to chapter and verse about the minutiae.

For every thing, there is a reason.

Generally retro fitting.

Wormy said...

Referring back to the picture Grande Finale produced on CMoMM, suggesting that the pyjamas were laid out in the back of the sofa.

This would be the same back of the sofa that both Eddie and Keela alerted to, right?

Martin Roberts said...

Maren @10:41

I think I may have touched on this earlier in the discussion, I can't recall exactly, but if we evaluate that statement against a last photo, which was more likely to have been among the FIRST photos, then Kate is absolving herself of responsibility for anything photographic that might have occurred subsequently - including the pyjama pictures as it happens.

Regards

M.R.

Martin Roberts said...

Wormy @14:09

Right. But there were two identical sofas at a right angle to each other. Also we don't quite know what the surface of each sofa base might have looked like with the seat cushions removed.

Whatever.

It's no less intriguing that Kate McCann should later describe a bedtime episode with the children while sitting on the 'blue' sofa.

As opposed to what? A red one? We can see the thing's blue, we don't need to be told. But readers of the 'bewk' were denied forensic photographs of the apartment's interior, so telling them the sofa was blue was what - necessary? informative? relevant? Hardly.

Martin Roberts said...

FAO Reggie

"I think I apologised to MR if I'd misunderstood anything or was putting words in his mouth"

You've nothing to apologize for. It's all good. The only hiccough I've had was with that 'iffy' sentence structure a while back but it's 'alles klar' as far as I'm concerned.

Please continue to contribute where meaningfully possible

Regards

M.R.

Wormy said...

Dr Roberts @15.08

Then let's assume just for a moment that the back of the sofa in the window was used to place the pyjamas on for the photo. If this was the case, could it be that the scents the the dogs found behind that sofa came from the pyjamas?

Martin Roberts said...

Wormy @15:16

As difficult as it is to envisage anyone up-ending a substantial piece of furniture (especially if the possibility existed of exploiting it in its conventional position), your suggestion is not uninteresting, although I have no idea how resistant cadaverine might be to washing.

All I would say is that secondary transfer is indeed an easier notion to accommodate than the thought of an overlooked corpse, prostrate on the floor. That said we're as far from knowing exactly what happened to Madeleine as we are from identifying who was responsible for it.

Lesly Finn said...


"Prof Dave Barclay, our forensics expert, feels strongly that the apartment should have been sealed off immediately when Madeleine was reported missing, and subjected to proper combing for evidence.

Moreover, he regards the speculation about the DNA results that have been found in the apartment and the McCanns' hire car as 'interesting', but potentially no more than that.

As Madeleine was known to have cut her knee during the holiday, it would not be unusual to find traces of her DNA in the apartment and on her clothing, which could have been transferred onto other items."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488211/The-Maddie-Files-Five-experts-explain-police-missed-vital-chances--body.html#ixzz43IRVcUfD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Madeleine tripped on her way up the steps into the aircraft (mentioned by her parents at different times). Three things about this event bother me:

1. She was wearing long trousers that first day, so how come her knee was grazed enough to bleed?
2. If indeed her knee did sustain a graze that bled how likely is it that it bled behind the sofa under the window?
3. And how likely is it that her knee would be the source "of any traces of her DNA found on her clothing, which could have been transferred to other items".

What is far more significant IMO is the failure to find ANY of Madeleine's DNA at all in that apartment. No hairs identified as hers, apparently no toothbrush or hairbrush, which necessitated Gerry finding something back at home (the dribbled on pillowcase) in order to obtain her DNA profile. How fortunate for all that he found a saliva stain!

You couldn't make it up!



Anonymous said...

Lesly Finn @22:51

Kate McCann in ‘madeleine’:

“So, in the second week of June, we had confided in Auntie Janet and our friend Amanda back in Leicestershire and got them to go round to our house looking for hairs that could only be Madeleine’s. They came up with five head hairs from the inside of a coat hood and a couple of eyelashes from her pillow and couriered the lot off to Danie in South Africa.”

From her pillow?

Maren

Lesly Finn said...

A couple of eyelashes no less! What was the date Gerry collected the pillowcase? Surely it was well before the S.Africa business?

Lesly Finn said...

Found it. Pillowcase sample collected in June 2007 and Daniel Krugel contact was July 2007. Curiouser and curiouser.

Himself said...

Maren, Lesly, good morning

Might I remind you, the McCanns are both medical professionals (allegedly) and the required Madeleine's DNA for what?

To put into Daniel Krugel's dead body machine.

Now why do I have a problem with this?

Martin Roberts said...

Lesley Finn 18.3 @22:51

I don't recall there being any mention of MM as a haemophiliac!

Martin Roberts said...

Lesley/Maren/Himself

Even in the absence of any confirmation by either of the McCanns, it has been widely assumed that the all-important pillowcase was retrieved by husband Gerry during his brief visit home on 21 May that year, when he returned to do ‘practical things,’ such as pay the bills, collect additional clothes, and check the family album for useable images.

Let’s explore that assumption then and suppose that he handed said pillowcase, protectively wrapped of course, to police in Leicester, before returning to Portugal, and that they in turn forwarded it post haste to Birmingham. That’s just about the right interval of time for the FSS to have got the job done and for Lesley Denton to summarize the results.

When one takes into account that a second, rather important confirmatory test, which she herself suggested, took from 28 June to 18 July to complete and report, three weeks seems about right. But then along comes Kate McCann and, in the time it takes to flourish her Schaeffer, Parker, Paper Mate or whatever, ruins the whole thing.

KM (in Madeleine, p.187): “So, in the second week of June, we had confided in Auntie Janet and our friend Amanda back in Leicestershire and got them to go round to our house looking for hairs that could only be Madeleine’s. They came up with five head hairs from the inside of a coat hood and a couple of eyelashes from her pillow and couriered the lot off to Danie in South Africa. They didn’t question what we were doing: they, too, were just desperate for Madeleine to be home.”

Leaving aside the question of why Gerry himself didn’t think to look inside Madeleine’s coat hood a fortnight earlier, choosing instead to hope for success with a blank canvas, let us focus attention on the reference here to ‘her pillow.’

There can have been only one meaningful pillow (either the only one, or the uppermost of two) and therefore one meaningful pillowcase, which Gerry is assumed to have retrieved on 21 May, in the course of doing 'practical things.' Having submitted the pillowcase to Leicestershire Police, who in turn forward it to the FSS for testing, Gerry leaves for Portugal.

So who returns the pillowcase to Madeleine’s bed at home in Rothley? Could that be why Kate describes the eyelashes as coming from Madeleine's PILLOW?

But Madeleine's pillow was previously covered by a pillowcase (already removed) and Madeleine has not slept at home since. So how did the eyelashes get onto the (only recently uncovered) pillow?

No, No. Gerry collected the pillowcase during his later ‘flying visit’ on 19 June, after Auntie Janet and friend Amanda had collected the eyelashes etc., which is also why there was none of that keratin-based stuff left for him to find.

By all accounts Gerry scarcely had time to draw breath on that second visit either, but even supposing he did hand over the pillowcase to 'Stu' Prior during a late June meeting in Leicester, then Leicestershire Police (and afterwards the FSS) would have had to deal with it (send/receive/examine/analyse/compare) immediately at each stage for Lesley Denton to be in any kind of position to write her first report seven days later. It took three weeks to complete a second, similar exercise don’t forget.

But hold on a minute!

Someone (the PJ or LP) wanted those various DNA profiles extracted and compared as a matter of urgency, and for some reason no dependable reference of Madeleine’s came up in 5A - hence the pillowcase inspiration. So, come the second week of June, with no satisfactory source of Madeleine’s DNA to hand and Gerry's second trip home still in the offing, the McCanns got the good ladies of Rothley to don their forensic gloves, go round to the McCanns’ house, and look for hairs that could only be Madeleine’s. Then send this extraordinarily rare commodity immediately to…. 'Danie in South Africa!'

The story does not work whichever way one tells it. Either CSI Rothley were too late (the pillowcase had already gone) or Gerry was (not enough time to spare).

Lesly Finn said...

Good morning (its night here in the Antipodes!) - so do I have a problem with this. As a retired medical professional, but not a doctor, I can recognise this as belonging in the realms of witchcraft and baloney! Now why the McCanns apparently can't is an interesting question.

Martin Roberts said...

Lesley Finn @10:35

"I can recognise this as belonging in the realms of witchcraft and baloney! Now why the McCanns apparently can't is an interesting question."

No more interesting to us here than why Operation Grange cannot also see through the myriad examples of 'baloney' trotted out over the years.

Bizarrely it's only the likes of us 'conspiracy theorists' who suspect the answers are to be found in the same operations manual!

Lesly Finn said...

Dr Roberts - I am of the same opinion as yourself, but you explain it better! If Gerry collected the pillowcase on his 2nd visit home in June then the likelihood of Kate's rels finding the eyelashes on M's pillow in July must be nigh on impossible, as you say.
I would like to hear your views on why no DNA belonging to M was discovered in 5A ? But I will need to read any reply tomorrow as it wiil soon be midnight. :)

Martin Roberts said...

Lesley Finn @10:53

"I would like to hear your views on why no DNA belonging to M was discovered in 5A?"

I haven't given that puzzle too much thought to be honest (as KM would say). Let's both sleep on it - you literally, me metaphorically

Martin Roberts said...

Lesley Finn @10:53

Madeleine's physical absence and/or immobility might explain it.

Anonymous said...

Hello Himself @10:21

Don’t you know that Gerry became a man possessed that night (8 May 2007), and that the next day he was up at dawn, making phone calls. Kate is/was praying for the people who had taken Madeleine, amongst all the other people she is/was praying for. She also wondered if people in Portugal don’t talk to priests in times of need. She doesn’t blame God by the way.

In her own words: “I truly believed that if I was able to speak to the Pope, my pleas for Madeleine’s safe return would be channelled more efficiently and effectively to Heaven."

What can I say?

Maren

Anonymous said...

Kate explains DNA matters (pp 264/265), in case her readers might wonder, I guess.

“Since there was no match, the most likely explanation for the presence of particular DNA sequences in the car – and certainly a far more rational one than a dead body having been there three weeks after her disappearance – was that the DNA was mine, Gerry’s, Sean’s or Amelie’s. Since Madeleine inherited her DNA from Gerry and me (as have the twins) she possesses strands common to us all. But I guess that didn’t make for quite so good a story.”

What this all means is anybody’s guess.

Maren

Himself said...

Maren 19 March 2016 at 14:53

What can you say?

Nobody is safe from that woman, not even God.

http://bit.ly/22pB6wt

Martin Roberts said...

Maren @ 15:09

"Since Madeleine inherited her DNA from Gerry and me (as have the twins) she possesses strands common to us all."

She makes it sound like a family sitting around (and tucking into) the same pot of spaghetti!

"What this all means is anybody’s guess."

So let me guess at an opportunity to 'pooh pooh' the very idea that a corpse was accommodated in the Renault Scenic whilst at the same time reinforcing the idea that they were all one biologically happy family.

Lesly Finn said...

John Lowe said something along the lines of was the DNA in the boot a true match or was it by chance because the sample was a mixture of 3 people or more.
Child missing from apartment
Blood and cadaver dogs alert in that apartment
Cadaver dog alerts to outside of car and to key fob
Blood dog alerts inside boot
A mixed sample of DNA is recovered from the boot

But hey! Nothing to be suspicious about. Parents not alarmed for the physical safety of their child.

Martin Roberts said...

Lesly Finn @19:48

Shouldn't you be asleep or are you one of the world's early risers?

I'll need to revisit the relevant documents, but wasn't the FSS arguably the only internationally respected laboratory on planet earth that could arrive at two subtly different conclusions based on the same data?

Such chicanery as has been practised in the course of this affair is, in my personal opinion, far beyond that which the McCanns could have accomplished or orchestrated on their own behalf.

Lesly Finn said...

MR @ 21:14
Often awake in wee small hours! Now it is yr wee small hours.

I don't know if FSS report was deliberate chicanery but I know that I never read pathology reports like it in 19 years in NHS.

"No member of the McCann family contributed to this result" ... Was that the only thing the PJ were interested in? I think they would have been interested to know if the results matched anyone else that they'd got a DNA sample from, wouldn't you?

Lowe's report was full of opinion rather than description IMO. Many instances where my eyebrows were raised let's say.

Another example off the top of my head (no pun intended) was that some of the hairs were discarded and not tested as they were thought to be too dark! Too dark for what? Too dark to be from Madeleine perhaps.Although if a head of hair is examined closely several shades of colour is normal. But surely any hair from the apartment might be 'of interest' at some point? Especially if identified and had been found somewhere unexpected?

The 'too meagre' excuse appeared far too often for a centre of forensic excellence surely?

All in all not the FSS' finest hour.


Anonymous said...

Martin R. 18.3 @15:08

“It's no less intriguing that Kate McCann should later describe a bedtime episode with the children while sitting on the 'blue' sofa.”

'the one facing the patio doors', Kate specified.

Perhaps it's a bit far-fetched, but what I also find intriguing is Kate's description of 'Madeleine, in her Eeyore pyjamas, sitting on my lap and cuddling in'. We can’t see the pyjamas, but do we need to be told? She doesn’t describe what S & A 'to our right' were wearing.

Am I correct in stating that readers of her book (May 2011) were denied any photographs of that holiday (from 28 April up to and including 3 May 2007), such as her photograph 'that is known around the world now' as she put it herself?

Maren

Anonymous said...

Or should I say 'We can't see the pyjamas, so, we need to be told?' Maren

Lesly Finn said...

So they sat on the blue sofa facing the patio doors, not the one at right angles to it that the dogs were interested in? And M was wearing her pyjamas - the ones so like her twin sister's. Neat.

Did those kids each have only one pair of pyjamas with them in PDL then? Unlikely one might say.

Lesly Finn said...

I admire anyone who has read the Book in its entirety. I've made several attempts but do tend to skip bits. Can't think why.

Will continue to read and enjoy this blog though, but leave the 'commenting' to your good selves. Keep up the good work x

Martin Roberts said...

Trust the dogs @15:12

Hi there

20.03 @13:04

“Madeleine's physical absence and/or immobility might explain it.”

Then whose cadaver scent could have been present in 5A to alert ‘Eddie’?

I have no problem whatsoever with the relationship between cadaverine as detected by the EVRD and the only locally missing person to have been identified to date. I was rather venturing a suggestion as to the apparent absence from apartment 5A of her DNA specifically.

If the 'donor' were in some way incapacitated early in the week, then she would not have been in a position to distribute traces of her presence as widely as she might have done had she been in and out, up and down, over a five day period.

That's a 'passive' hypothesis. There is of course a more 'active' alternatives, but to draw attention to such a possibility is to invite accusations of being a 'conspiracy theorist'. (That the McCanns undoubtedly conspired with each other AT LEAST doesn't seem to count)

Himself said...

LOL
https://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/breaking-news-gerry-mccann-is-missing/

Anonymous said...

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

Comment (199) Tania Cadogan 22 March 2016 at 20:03

Excellent!

Maren

Lesly Finn said...

The Pyjama Game .... the daughter of Martin Smith from Ireland made a statement about the man that the family saw carrying a female child at around 10pm on the fateful night. Aiofe Smith stated that the child was wearing light coloured clothing .... lightweight trousers, white with possibly a pattern, and a top with LONG sleeves. But the Eeyore pyjamas had short sleeves, a fact which Kate herself highlighted when she said that she wished that M had been wearing her long sleeved ones as the night was cold.

Kate is very good at pushing her version of the "facts" so, if Aiofe was correct regarding LONG sleeves, what was Kate doing promoting the idea that the short sleeved pyjamas ("Maddies jammies" - so identified by her little sister according to her mother) were the ones that M was wearing when she was "taken"?

Eeyore? Long sleeves? Short sleeves? Tea stain? - the Pyjama Game must have some significance surely?

Lesly Finn said...

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

Lesly Finn said...

Trust the dogs @ 22.55

I would just like to add the following comments:

1. If Madeleine and Amelie EACH had a pair of Eeyore pyjamas with them in PDL it would be hard for a two-yr old to tell the difference unless both pairs were present.

2. There may have only been one pair .... hand-me-downs from Madeleine to Amelie, in which case A would be very likely say they were 'Maddie's jammies'.


3. We can only ASSUME that the Barbie pjs (4t) were in PDL as Kate does not make this clear in her remark that Maddie might be cold in her Eeyore ones.

But, having said all that, what would be the point of a press call to show the world what Madeleine was wearing when she was 'abducted' except to assist in the identification of a definite sighting?

Scenario

Q1: "Has anyone seen a swarthy/hairy/scruffy/bloke carrying a blonde little girl in SHORT-sleeved [Eeyore] Pyjamas?"

Q2: "What's that you say? Someone saw an ordinary looking man carrying a little fair girl in LONG-sleeved [Barbie] pyjamas?

Answer: "Phew, couldn't have been Madeleine then, could it?"

There is always a reason for anything they may, or may not, do or say, n'est ce pas, Hercules?

Happy Easter to You, too

Anonymous said...

We have been presented with one of the most unique and colossal child missing cases in history, and yet Senior Hyphen didn't know the name of the operation. OK, WHATEVER!

Anonymous said...

Sorry, forgot the anonymous rule.

Levidia

Martin Roberts said...

Lesly Finn @01:47

Good to see you contributing still.

"what would be the point of a press call to show the world what Madeleine was wearing when she was 'abducted' except to assist in the identification of a definite sighting?"

The same (and only) purpose to be served by the photographs one might suppose, although the likelihood of any such sighting corresponding to the publicised information would have been zero I suspect.

"There is always a reason for anything they may, or may not, do or say, n'est ce pas, Hercules?"

Always.

Staying with those photos for a moment, being taken before the events of night-time 3 May suggests the intention was not primarily to contradict any subsequent sighting of (possibly) Madeleine wearing something else.

Given the reason for their existence (a taster of what was to come via the Eurotour) it is entirely possible that they did not constitute an initiative of the McCanns.

The first arrivals to make their presence felt at the Ocean Club were not diplomats or lawyers but marketeers, some of whom were in PdL from the beginning of the week. I would suggest the plans devised for selling the situation to the public were theirs. (What would a couple of doctors know about 'good marketing ploys' that wasn't first explained to them by someone else?)

Kate probably followed the script that Thursday in much the same way as Gerry had done the day before, when receiving his infamous 14 text messages. The timings alone confirm the relationship between the messages, all of which originated from the same, as yet unidentified, source:

8.07.12, 8.07.17
9.10.45, 9.13.01, 9.18.15
10.35.50, 10.47.56
12.35.58
13.46.23, 13.48.33, 13.59.32
15.49.05
17.49.26
19.49.34

That the government saw fit to throw Mitchell into the mix is all the confirmation we need that PR was the priority and not merely a facilitating mechanism.


Lesly Finn said...

MR said @ 01.47

"Staying with those photos for a moment, being taken before the events of night-time 3 May suggests the intention was not primarily to contradict any subsequent sighting of (possibly) Madeleine wearing something else."

Have never thought that for a minute!

But to continue talking about those pyjamas (sorry!)

The parents account of the events of that night emphasize all things 'bedtime' .... M was "very tired" had to be carried by K from creche *, children not taken to play area before bed because M was too tired, M cuddled up on blue sofa for bedtime story, M wearing the Eeyore pyjamas, M snuggled in bed saying she'd had 'the best day ever' (Kate), M lying asleep on top of the covers (Gerry - gazing down at her thinking how lucky he was), etc, etc.

Supposing that M had a fatal accident earlier in the day, or on a previous day (as many seem to suspect), wouldn't she have been more likely to be wearing day clothes at the time rather than nightwear? But, regardless, it might have been considered very important for any plan to reinforce the idea that she had gone to bed as usual that Thursday night, don't you think?

However, if the Smith sighting really was of M being carried, and not some other bloke carrying a child, the 'carrier' would have been aware that he had been seen by several people at close quarters. What he and the child were dressed in then becomes an important detail for identification purposes, should any such descriptions from the Smiths be forthcoming. Style of pyjamas might be significant (as might a button feature on beige/cream trousers but I digress!)

In fact what the Smith's actually witnessed (or had noticed) was important enough for the McCanns' double-glazing benefactor to make it his business to visit Mr Smith in his own home in Ireland. Incredible as that seems, well incredible to me at least!

And, according to the McC's, Gerry was wearing jeans that night and M the Eeyore pyjamas. Neither of which tally with what Aiofe Smith thinks she saw.

So who does one believe? Only wish I knew the answer to that one.

(*quite a mean feat to carry an almost 4 year old that distance, I think. Not to mention if she was carrying M who was shepherding the twins?)

Lesly Finn said...

Hercule .. There are no independent witnesses for 1t (that M was wearing Eeyore pyjamas). So YES it could have been M that the Smiths saw.

That is my point .. a great deal might hang on whether or not M was wearing those Eeyore pjs, n'est ce
pas?

Bon nuit

Martin Roberts said...

Lesly Finn @00:38

"The parents account of the events of that night emphasize all things 'bedtime'"

Having arrived there via a succession of diurnal activities about which there is considerable doubt.

"it might have been considered very important for any plan to reinforce the idea that she had gone to bed as usual that Thursday night, don't you think?"

Yes. Especially in view of:

"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances." (Kate McCann)

@09:04

"That is my point .. a great deal might hang on whether or not M was wearing those Eeyore pjs, n'est ce
pas?"

And the conclusion my article.

Anonymous said...

Martin R. @25.3 @22:29

“(What would a couple of doctors know about 'good marketing ploys' that wasn't first explained to them by someone else?)”

My thoughts exactly.

http://www.prweek.com/article/656479/mark-warner-hires-bell-pottinger

Mark Warner brought in Resonate on a generic brief a week before three
year-old Madeleine McCann was kidnapped from its Portuguese resort in Praia
da Luz. MD Michael Frohlich then referred the firm to his parent company’s crisis specialist.


Coincidence?

Regards,

Maren

Martin Roberts said...

Maren @13:35

"Coincidence?"

Absolutely not!

I may have said it up-thread, or in DM to Himself, but what unfolded from 4 May was the execution of a marketing plan, involving the pyjamas (real and photographic) and afterwards a logo designed to embrace and reflect the USP - the coloboma.

The essence of marketing is the creation of a demand/expectation and subsequent delivery of a product into that conditional niche.

I conclude that the McCann campaign was not put in place in order to lessen the long-term likelihood they might be uncovered, but because it was guaranteed from the outset not to happen. They were 'good to go' and did so. Except it wasn't the McCanns steering the ship. (You won't find discussion of a SWOT analysis in any Medical textbook).

Trust the dogs said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lesly Finn said...

I am unable to discuss or comment in similar style as your good selves. I am but a simple soul! I too believe in the dogs and I follow MR's posts with great interest. I will just continue to read without further comment. Best wishes.

Martin Roberts said...

Lesly Finn @18:10

Please do not underestimate your own powers of reasoning. You should not be dissuaded from commenting, and in your own style, whenever you have a valid/interesting observation to make. None of us have a monopoly in insight.

And besides, who's better placed to keep an eye on the McCanns' antipodean campaign?

Anonymous said...

Lesly Finn,

Just like ‘Trust the dogs’ I love reading your posts.

Don’t you forget about me, lol.

Met vriendelijke groeten,

Maren

tania cadogan said...

The more eyes the better, since they make pick up on something that others miss.
personal experience plays a great part as well, they know what can and can't happen in a particular situation and may flag up something as sensitive when someone else without that life experience will miss it.

it is also said in statement analysis, that leaving the statement and returning to it later can produce up to 40% more information.

Lesly Finn said...

MR, Maren and Tania .. Thank you. You haven't seen the last of me :)

Lesly Finn said...

Nothing to forgive, Hercule! LOL!

Anonymous said...

Amazing peice of investigative work DR Roberts. They do seemed to have messed up badly photographing the wet pjs. If it wasn't so sad it would be laughable. I don't know if you are suggesting that the child may have died before the 3rd but to commit such a silly disasterous mistake would that not be more indicative of it being done in a panic soon after the child died on the 3rd. Kate

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous (Kate) @01:17

"would that not be more indicative of it being done in a panic soon after the child died on the 3rd."

No. It's simply indicative of where the evidence takes us.

Exactly when do you think the child might have died? When and why were the pyjamas wet? No photography after the 'last photo' don't forget and no daylight pictures after sunset.

The options get fewer the more constraints are applied, as the door to 'what if's' and 'could haves' is closed.

I do not presume to know with certainty when Madeleine McCann died that spring. All I can say is that whatever was done to prepare for her 'abduction' came about as a result of something else happening beforehand (cause and effect and all that). Consequently, the earlier the signs of subterfuge, the earlier the real tragedy.

Anonymous said...

Trust the dogs @10:23/ Dr Roberts – Thank you for the response. I am an avid fan of Dr Roberts I have read almost everything he has written on the subject and yes you sum it up well when you say “I find the explanatory power of this Dr Roberts’ hypothesis superior by a large margin to any other relevant hypothesis I know of”. I rely mostly on people like him to gave me my a ha moments of which there has been many when reading his works. Not least among those was his Metaphoric Comprehensive Revisited which explains MI5 and JG (CEOP) involvement ......just brilliant can I say.
This particular blog was another of the great A ha “got you” moments. In answer to the questions put by DR Roberts
Exactly when do you think the child might have died? When and why were the pyjamas wet? No photography after the 'last photo' don't forget and no daylight pictures after sunset.
I think she died early evening on 3rd may – That’s my current thinking but I always like to get my thinking on the same wave length as yours which was the reason for my original question.
When & why were the pyjamas wet – In trying to answer this question I’m starting to get on your wave length. They were photographed by the parents to be presented to the PJ as a picture of the pyjamas that the child wore when she was abducted (even though such a photograph should never have existed if abduction had taken place). Therefore they were photographed wet after the child died. If we go by Kate who says she washed them late morning, had she died early evening the pyjamas would have been dried by then. In fact now I can’t see if the child died early evening and they were out of the apartment by 8.30 to dine (after 10 pm when they all returned to the apartment it may have been a tad suspicious if they started to wash and photo them) how anyone in that situation would have presence of mind to wash the pyjamas and take the photograph inside 5A.

Thank you
Kate
PS - Kate eh? (It wouldn't be the first time someone has feigned errors of orthography - lol). Not sure what this means so have ignored it

Lesly Finn said...

Probably not related to the matter in hand but "when" things happened is pretty crucial and difficult to pinpoint. My question being ... did one or both McCanns have access to 5A after they were moved to the Paynes apartment around 3 or 4am on 4th May?

Kate talks about them going out, searching and calling, around 7 am and there not being a soul around. Was this when they might have re-entered 5A? For what purpose I can only surmise [not deduce, lol].

Was this when the navy holdall/sports bag and Madeleine's pink blanket 'disappeared'. Both were evident in the first crime scene photos taken around 4 am. That much is fact.

Anyone entering 5A around dawn might have had a whole list of things to sort out ,,,,,,,, Might washing and photographing the pyjama top have been one of them?

Cheers

Anonymous said...

Bampots

I posted this elsewhere and have often wondered what part Antonio Castela played.....interesting what this article says of pyjamas tho.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id450.html



Madeleine McCann was in my taxi but police ignored me Daily Express

A TAXI driver who claims he picked up Madeleine McCann the night after she vanished has accused Portuguese police of dismissing his evidence.

By: John Twomey
Published: Thu, May 3, 2012
Madeleine McCann who disappeared in Portugal

Antonio Castela, 72, says he is ­certain the little girl in pink pyjamas travelling with four adults was three-year-old Madeleine.

Madeleine was wearing a pink T-shirt with the character Eeyore and white trousers with a small floral ­pattern when she was snatched.

The cabbie described how the girl in the taxi even had the same distinctive mark in her eye as Madeleine does.

He went to Portugal's CID, the ­Policia Judiciaria, soon after discovering Madeleine had gone missing and gave a statement.

Anonymous said...

Bampots @22:24

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic17264.html

Algarve Resident

Updated: 29 Feb 2008

“The girl had a darker spot in one of her eyes,” says Monte Gordo taxi driver António José Castela Cardoso.

No mention of the pyjamas.

While the secrecy of justice law continues to constrain any official clarification about the Madeleine Case, unofficial PJ sources were quoted by the Portuguese language press as confirming the existence of António Cardoso’s report in the case files.

?

Maren

Anonymous said...

@Maren 23.00 ....

My point was not the truth of Antonios mention of pyjamas, it is the fact someone should place this in a newspaper article with no reference to its truth. Is it to avert our attention or confirm this was Maddie.....just wonder why and thought it was interesting...

Bampots

Lesly Finn said...

Bampots @ 23.13 - I find it interesting too. First reported in August 2008 ... Twomey article 2012.

26 August 2008: The Jornal do Algarve reports a claim by Portuguese taxi driver António José Castela Cardoso that he transported a girl in pink pyjamas, resembling Madeleine's description, at 8.10pm on the night of May 3rd 2007, in the company of four adults. He says one of the three men with the child resembled Robert Murat and the lone woman looked like Kate McCann. He claims to have contacted the PJ the following day when he saw Madeleine's picture on TV.

Clarence Mitchell says: "The declarations of Mr. Castela are false. They are a perfect nonsense. He can only be mistaken when he says that at that time he transported Kate and Madeleine with three men ... It astonishes me that only now, ten months later, he talks about this. These are declarations that only cause pain to Kate and Gerry."

Correio da Manhã (28.08.08) report that a 'source close to the investigation' has assured them that the claims made by António Castela were "investigated" at the time and "the lead was discounted."

It is also reported that Mr Castela has spoken to the McCanns' private detectives, who were, at that time, Método 3.

02 May 2012: The claim suddenly resurfaces again in an Evening Standard article, to coincide with the fifth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, but this time the sighting has shifted forward 24 hours to the evening of May 4th. In addition, the time has been changed to 7.50pm and all reference to Kate McCann and Robert Murat has been removed.

Clarence Mitchell says: "Mr Castela did absolutely the right thing at the time by reporting his sighting to the PJ. It is clearly deeply shocking that he now tells us he has not been interviewed once by a detective in five years. This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be looked at in the investigative review now being carried out by the Metropolitan Police."

August 2013 The British press speculate that Mr Castela is one of 38 'persons of interest' that are expected to be questioned as part of the Met's 'investigative review' of the case.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id450.html

Anonymous said...

Bampots @23:13
Lesly Finn @02:06

I was wondering (if it’s true that António Cardoso’s report is in the case files) what he told the police in his initial statement "within days of Madeleine being reported missing".

01-03-2008

http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/view/948-1

António José Castela Cardoso, or Castela as he is known in Vila Real de Santo António, says he told police of his dramatic story within days of Madeleine being reported missing. Bizarrely, he suggests two of the four adults travelling with the girl resembled Kate McCann and Robert Murat, who are both arguidos or formal suspects in the case.

(...)

He told his son, a GNR police officer, of the sighting who assisted him in contacting police detectives investigating the case, though António Castela says he has heard nothing since his initial statement, which he gave “Over the telephone in a ten minute call”.

(...)

After being given a brief description of what had been reported, Robert Murat reiterated to The Portugal News that he was at home on the evening of May 3rd, and that he even had a phone record of a telephone call he made that evening at 8:15pm, five minutes after his alleged sighting near the border.

GP from UK comments: …(If the Taxi Driver is lying he should go to PRISON)! What would Clarence Mitchell say?

Just gathering information.

Regards,

Maren

Martin Roberts said...

Lesly Finn 31.3 @21:36

"'when' things happened is pretty crucial and difficult to pinpoint. My question being ... did one or both McCanns have access to 5A after they were moved to the Paynes apartment around 3 or 4am on 4th May?

"Anyone entering 5A around dawn might have had a whole list of things to sort out ,,,,,,,, Might washing and photographing the pyjama top have been one of them?"

As any good comedian would confirm - timing is everything.

GM did gain access afterwards to 5A when he returned to collect some clothes plus a bucket and spade!

As regards any surreptitious photography on his part:

1. GM ruled himself out as the photographer in his 10.5 statement

2. Something we might ask ourselves is 'what was it that required picturing damp pyjamas against a blue textile background (5A) and could not be accomplished with dry pyjamas against a beige background (such as the floor in 4G)?

Such a manoeuvre could only have had an illicit purpose (Madeleine's pyjamas rather than Amelie's, say) and one the McCanns are very unlikely to put forward as an explanation therefore.

Himself said...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_w-8JKaTohe4/TENYjIy406I/AAAAAAAAZDY/MP-9moUM_Ow/s1600/McCann_taxi_sighting.JPG

Lesly Finn said...

@MR

My point being that we don't know what G and K were actually doing when they 'searched' at dawn on 4th. As usual we only have their word on that. Strange that they waited until all the (many) others stopped searching at 4.30am. But I am digressing. Again. Naughty corner + dunce's cap!

Lesly Finn said...

Sorry to repeat myself! Ha ha.

Anonymous said...

@lesly Finn 19.50

I have thought about what they did at dawn many times. I have always been intrigued by the idea that they carried Maddie across country,they are both distance runners,to Lagos.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id27.html

A Briton, who runs a company in the Algarve, has told police he spotted a couple carrying a young child, early on Friday morning 04 May 2007.

George Burke, from Liverpool, was driving home from nearby Lagos around 6.00am when he caught the two people in his car headlights. "I couldn't see them clearly because it was dark and windy. They scurried down a side road and out of sight."

http://genreith.de/MMcC/doku.php?id=where_is_maddie#dokuwiki__top

Michael Wright is a close family relative and immediatly was called by Gerry to help the McCann's in PdL. On the 6th may Wright by pure chance got knowledge of the Burke-Sighting. But he didn't officially report the George-Burke-Sighting. Why? Not before in his statement to Leicestershire Police in 2008, →where he stated:

“As for additional information I would like to add that on Sunday, 6 May I went to the pizzaria in PdL and bought a large quantity of pizzas. I was attended by a girl from Liverpool. I explained to her my relationship to the McCanns and she told me that her father ‘George’ had seen a man carrying a child in his arms in the early morning of 4 May in the resort. I asked her if her father would speak about this to the Portuguese authorities. I don’t know if the information was ever investigated.”..............

The aerial distance from the west-coast of PdL to the marina of Lagos is just 5 Kilometers, the shortest walking distance using small streets a little less than 8 Kilometers. An average walker will do this distance in one and an half hour. But the McCann parents are both well trained long runners capable of doing even a marathon. They could manage this distance easily in half the time, about 45 Minutes. (The following picture shows some of the multiple of possible traces from the west-cost of PdL to the Lagos marina.).......

and further down.......

Remark about the distance/time: One may wonder how they could do the walk to and back the marina (ca. 5 km (3 mil.) air distance). One way is about 7 to 8 km, which would take an average walker about 1.5 hours. To carry the body to the marina they but had enough time, at least from around 4:00 to 6:00 am - Way back they had 1 hour. Both Gerry and Kate are top trained runners and walkers, see e.g. Gerry, who did an →Iron-Man Triatlon (Virgin Active London Triathlon with top international elite athletes) completing the swim, bike, run in an impressive olympic time of 2:26.50. Also Kate is able to do a Marathon (42km) and it takes her even today (aged 45) just →45 minutes for 10 Km. So, as they also knew the region from their daily runs very nicely, the distance was quite easy to do for them.....

Who knows, but it has always made some sense to me.

Bampots




Lesly Finn said...

@ Bampots 00.17

Yes fascinating stuff re the George Burke/Brooks sighting. It is really rather amazing how many couples answering the description of the McCanns, and carrying a child, were seen around the time that Madeleine was reported missing.

3rd MAY (22.00 hrs) - the Smith sighting
4th MAY (06.00hrs) - the Burke/Brook sighting
5th MAY (01.50hrs) - the McClusky sighting

Red herrings, or maybe sea bass?




Martin Roberts said...

George Burke/Brooks owned/operated the first-floor pizzeria at Lagos Marina, which overlooked the very jetty where the yacht 'Sheerwater' was moored, and from which it could easily be picked out from among the vessels huddled together there.

Strange isn't it that KM's clairvoyant contact should respond to a yacht that was easy to single out but which didn't actually go anywhere. Of course, if the intention were to carry M out to sea, someone would first have to put her aboard the boat, and they just might be seen in the vicinity of the marina as a result.

Cue George from Liverpool?

Anonymous said...

MR@10.32

My what a glorious broth they have produced. We spend so much time on sorting the wheat from the chaff we miss some fat grains that thicken the soup!
I know where you coming from Lesly,we see them here we see them there. But something in this idea struck me as kosher. They jogged their little hearts out along that coastline. What if the smiths and George did see them,then Jane threw a spanner in the opposite direction?
Kate ,as Martin surmises has a vision of the very truth in front of us,Sheerwater. The dogs could sniff as many trails as they liked these were simply the routes the couple jogged along everyday in an effort to distract themselves from the horror of the situation.......or maybe to distract the dogs from the horror of what had happened.
It just seems to cover a lot of bases IMO.

Bampots

Martin Roberts said...

FAO Ask the Dogs:

Q: What grounds would “a blog administrator” have to remove any of my posts?
A: His own entirely. And at his personal discretion. It’s HIS blog.

Q: What makes me think that the pjs top was wet when photographed?
A: As explained in the article, a dark patch that cannot be attributed to shadow must be caused by some means other than simply obstructing the light. Check out a ‘wet t-shirt’ contest. You should get the point(s).

Q: Why do I insist the top was photographed in ambient light?
A: That was the spontaneous reaction of a professional photographer to whom I once showed the picture.

Q: Have I a higher resolution image of the pjs photograph?
A: Link to Daily Mail publication - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-454029/Search-Madeleine--police-release-pyjamas-wearing.html

Link within ANJ article - Click on actual image posted for source(seems pretty ‘hi res’ to me).

Anonymous said...

Kate McCann (in ‘madeleine’):

“Already there were people and organizations coming forward with offers of a reward for information leading to Madeleine’s safe return. We heard that a colleague of mine in general practice had, amazingly, pledged £100,000. A good friend in Liverpool, a police officer, warned us that we would need a great deal more than this to tempt anybody connected with the crime to give Madeleine up. It seemed a huge sum of money to us but, being a policeman, he was more used to dealing with criminals than we were.”

No comment. Maren

------------------------------

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann
Rewards
£100,000 (€147,000) by a colleague of Kate McCann.[144]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann#cite_note-Sky_story-144
144. "'Continue To Pray For Madeleine'". Sky News. 6 May 2007. Retrieved 6 May 2007

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1264342,00.html
Page has gone

http://web.archive.org/web/20070508050600/http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1264342,00.html
[an error occurred while processing this directive]

http://web.archive.org/web/20070508193506/http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1264342,00.html?
May 08, 2007
A colleague of Kate's has offered a £100,000 reward for Madeleine's safe return.

------------------------------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MSPtShACg4

Martin Roberts said...

M 2.4 @23:20

Mine too. Maybe they've emerged together into the same parallel universe inhabited by Grange believers? What an ignominious career high-point for DCI Nicola to have reached - left holding the baby while Redders slopes off with a percentage of the £12m, in the form of his pension.

It's a sad adjunct to adulthood in this country when one discovers that the institutions of our society, which we were taught as children to respect and to trust, are as corrupt as those that choose to disregard its values.

Lesly Finn said...

MR @ 10.02
Yes it is a shock to the system all right. Even worse is the realisation that these same institutions continue ever onwards in the arrogant belief that their feet of clay remain hidden. You can fool some of the people all the time but ....

Anonymous said...

Hello Lesly,

Altho a Dutchie (literally) some kind of ‘we have met before’ I’d say. I was just an occasional reader, not a member nor a member of any other forum.

With regard to the McCann case, my first ‘meeting’ 4/5 May, 2007:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxHuwT__URc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZkaaZYRbRg

Amazingly enough, I felt no empathetic response; I just thought there is not an abducted and alive daughter on the parents’ mind. That’s suggestive I know, but, almost nine years later, after having read a lot of information (as far as available) I’m still of the same opinion, and I still wonder what this case is really about.

Thanks to Himself and Martin Roberts for excellent blogs and essays; thanks to all of you for interesting reading and English lessons.

Regards,

Maren

Anonymous said...

@16:12

I should say 'subjective' instead of 'suggestive'. Maren

Lesly Finn said...

Thank you for the reply, Maren.

Like you I felt suspicious the first time the parents on TV. In those first few days their behaviour seemed to me to be totally at odds with what i expected. Subsequent events have done nothing to change my suspicion. Sadly.

Himself said...

Ask the Dogs

Your comment is in the spam box where it is destined to remain.

You appear to have some need or other, but whatever that need might be, you won't get it fulfilled here.

So I suggest you bugger off and do the bollocks somewhere else.

Himself said...

Alice rtgr Bugger off the pair of you. If you have so much to say start your own blog.

And you rtgr must be out of your skull to keep trying to post here. Which part of fuck off do you not understand?

Anonymous said...

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/19-Sep8/EXPRESSO_06_09_2008.htm

Q – The PJ discredits Jane Tanner’s testimony. They say that when she saw said man with the child, you [Gerry] were chatting nearby and it was impossible that you hadn’t seen him as well...

Gerry – I didn’t see her because my back was turned to the location where she passed. I was talking to a friend. And there is also the couple with children that saw a man carrying a child with a pyjama that was similar to Madeleine’s, blond hair, the same age.

The child the Smiths saw wasn't wearing short sleeved Eeyore's. Gerry knows, Mr Redwood knows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y

at the 23:56 mark

Why did UK Government set up Operation Grange and throw £12m at it?

https://twitter.com/TeddyShepherd/status/717470464591982592

G'day.

Maren

Martin Roberts said...

Maren @12:48

Your link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y

@22:40

"We know the pyjamas that their child was wearing"

Had long sleeves too. So, as I ventured to suggest, Eeyore didn't leave the building.

Lesly Finn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lesly Finn said...

https://www.facebook.com/298958880241023/photos/a.300454540091457.1073741828.298958880241023/749330321870541/?type=3&theater

Thought you might enjoy this .... re pyjamas!

Martin Roberts said...

Lesly Finn @02:40

V. good. Thank you.

Comedy can be the best means of airing an unpalatable truth, as even the classical Greeks understood.

Martin Roberts said...

Time to dot an 'i' and cross a 't' or two.

Commentators elsewhere have suggested the pyjamas featured in the so-called 'official photos' were (a) genuinely Amelie's, by virtue of being 'hand-me-downs' and (b) that the button was more indicative of garment size than a design change.

Watch closely now.....

From The Sun (07.3.07):

"The McCann family also disclosed that on the night of her disappearance Madeleine was wearing white pyjama bottoms with a small floral design and a short-sleeved pink top with a picture of Eeyore with the word Eeyore written in capital letters.

"The clothes were bought at Marks and Spencer last year."

That's the 'abducted' pair they're talking about, bought when Madeleine would have been 3 years old or younger, and which, according to KM (2007), were a little larger than Amelie's AND lacked a button.

If this 'abducted' set (B)was purchased in 2006, the button-up pair (set A) must have been acquired earlier still (2005?), well before being passed down to Amelie.

So, was set (B) (minus button) originally bought for a 3-4 year old and the previous set (A) (plus button) for a 2-3 year old? That the PJ were sent a 2-3 year old pair MINUS a button would indicate a design change.

If, however, Madeleine's first pair of (button-up) Eeyore pyjamas were those of an 18-month old toddler and her replacement set for a 2-3 year old, then the button might have been an indication of size.

In which case we're looking at pyjamas intended for a child 18 months to 2 years.

Really?

Madeleine was described as 90 cms. tall (somewhat small for her age). Now where might that little metric have appeared from? A garment label perhaps?

The important question in any event is not who owned what pyjamas but when those 'official photographs' were taken.

Meanwhile we await any form of news from those previously intent on quizzing agency photographer Luis Forra personally.

Anonymous said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNI5up44Nho

14:14

Kate McCann: “The child was bare foot and bare-armed ...”

Bare-armed? Not according to Jane Tanner who could only see the child’s feet. And also not according to 'Operation Grange'. Oh well... M