PYJAMAS (Madeleine's) and other clothing items

Rosa canina wrote:Hello Poster - yes, the McCanns and their multitude of laundering arrangements...!


(bet you a bottle of NZ Sav that Gerry has never operated a washing machine in his life)


Mrs 'wash-it-good' Kate's on film (Panorama documentary) dutifully pegging it in public :




With the Madonna blue sky behind her our Mrs Mop looks like a woeful Our Lady of the Laundry :

"

Quite the camera angle, must've been kneeling...

Indeed. But Russell makes quite a thing about putting dirty washing in the washing machine in his apartment! I think he even indignantly claims he knows how to operate a washing machine in one of his rogatories. I presume that the thrust of the question was  about whether he actually turned on the washing machine at the time or turned it on later. I wonder if the machine was a washer-dryer as it would have taken quite some time to dry  bedding etc.

Funny how the McCanns on Saturday after the alleged abduction elected to give some of the dirty clothes to the Ocean Club laundry rather than wash them themselves.

Then of course we have Kate's account of how she asked for maintenance men to come to the apartment earlier in the week to show her how to use the washing machine. This is another of those strange additions to the narrative that you have to wonder why she included it?

Rather like Monday - she writes nothing about the activities of the day. Nothing about how the children were settling into the routine. Nothing about what she and Gerry did that day. The only thing she records about Monday daytime is that she and Fiona made their first 'foray' to Baptista supermarket to stock up on 'essentials'. Given that Kate tells us that Gerry had already made a visit there the day before to pick up food for breakfasts and lunches it seems a bit strange that there was already a need for 'essentials' by the following day.

poster wrote:

Freedom wrote:That is the waffling whining rubbish she came out with.

OMG - listen to what Kate says at around the 1.42 mark. The 'somebody who knows something' is not the person who 'took Madeleine' but someone on the periphery....

What a gaff....

Also notice Gerry's expression - especially if the slow down the footage. Priceless!

This and very many other things said by the McCanns and their friends makes me believe that they are desperate to find out who saw anything incriminating. IMO they know who 'took Madeleine' but they want to find out who else might have seen or heard the person/people who took her?

Remember they also requested that fellow holiday-makers that week send in photographs and any footage taken during that week.

We know that a number of holiday makers saw/heard things that were suspicious. Some of the rogatories from people who would be important eye-witnesses are not in the public domain.

Off the top of my head we have:

1. Mrs Fenn - heard screaming coming from apartment 5A for over an hour on Tuesday evening - the noise intensified and then stopped very abruptly when someone entered or exited by the patio doors. She considered it consistent with a four-year-olds voice (in other words, not the twins).
2. Nigel Foster - a fellow holiday-maker from Southampton - spoke to members of the group who were watching a mini-tennis game in which Nigel's four year old daughter was participating. There are conflicting accounts of what was said but we know that someone was video-recording Nigel's daughter playing mini tennis. Nigel approached the group and spoke to them. His rogatory is missing from the file. This was on Thursday morning.
3. Mrs Fenn's niece saw a suspicious-looking blond man exiting from a garden gate nearby the apartment as she sat on the veranda of her Aunt's apartment on Thursday afternoon. She gives a very clear and detailed description of the man who was blond of Scandinavian appearance. Kate in her book gives no description or e-fit of a blond man.
4. The Jensen sisters give an account of two blond men acting suspiciously on the balcony of a nearby apartment (empty 5C perhaps?) on Thursday afternoon. Kate in her book appears to morph these blond sightings into one and the picture given in  her book is of a very dark man of North African appearance.

IMO all these sightings are significant. Both Kate and Fiona are rude to Mrs Fenn, which suggests she is an important eye-witness. Kate in her book gives a description of the conversation that took place between Nigel and members of the group which I think casts the members of the TM group in a suspicious light. I think that Kate has done her trick of putting  words into other people's mouths here. I would love to read Nigel's account of the incident because I suspect it would be incriminating. Of note, both Russell and Matt also mention this incident and Russell goes on and on  about it at great length so it is clearly highly sensitive. Despite three eye-witnesses (at least  - there may have been others that are not on record) seeing blond men acting suspiciously Kate does not include a single picture of a blond man in her book.

There are lies and then there are lies of omission.

And then there is Kate's book of 'the truth'.

Amen!

Going back to the point you make about washing machines, Poster - it just occurred to me how odd it would be to put a washing machine on late at night in a small apartment after your child has been sick and you intend going out again after your child has settled. Surely the noise would have been a disturbance? It's bad enough that he saw fit to leave a seriously unwell child unattended so he could nip back to finish his meal but leaving a noisy electrical appliance on is unbelievable IMO. Regarding KM telling us she made her first trip to the supermarket on Monday, I read this as her clunky way of saying "I didn't go very far,honest - it was a really mundane day and I only went to the supermarket..." which in turn makes me think there was high drama and she went further afield than she's letting on.

chrissie wrote:Kate is working in a Leicester hospital, in what capacity I don't know. But this is from a trusted friend who had to take her Mother for a hospital appointment. I can't say any more.

Interesting. I just checked and see she re-registered on the GMC with a licence in 2016 after registering without one between 2013-2016.

mumof6 wrote:I'm sure I saw somewhere that Amaral says that one of the mistakes made early in the investigation was that none of the Tapas 7 were photographed that night, so what they were wearing will never be known.

Of course it is a mistake only in retrospect, the proportion of missing children's cases where the parents are suspected to be involved is a tiny proportion of missing children's cases. Still, the police were suspicious of them within the first hour, so I suspect that another similar case in Portugal would have a very different police response.

Potentially, that could be making an innocent families ordeal much harder.

There are not many people who manage to make the world a worse place on quite such a scale.

I would put the McCanns and their friends in that category. In the majority of cases of missing children parents, family, friends or those known to the child have something to do with the disappearance. This is a statistical fact. Kate gives the statistics in her book.

I see nothing to suggest that Madeleine McCann's disappearance does not fit within the statistical norm.

Crackfox wrote:Going back to the point you make about washing machines, Poster - it just occurred to me how odd it would be to put a washing machine on late at night in a small apartment after your child has been sick and you intend going out again after your child has settled. Surely the noise would have been a disturbance? It's bad enough that he saw fit to leave a seriously unwell child unattended so he could nip back to finish his meal but leaving a noisy electrical appliance on is unbelievable IMO. Regarding KM telling us she made her first trip to the supermarket on Monday, I read this as her clunky way of saying "I didn't go very far,honest - it was a really mundane day and I only went to the supermarket..." which in turn makes me think there was high drama and she went further afield than she's letting on.

Not sure it was late at night and I think after Russell left Jane returned to the apartment and the (allegedly) sick child. But I do agree that putting the washing machine on when there is a sick child who needs to be settled seems a bit mad.

IMO I doubt their child was sick. Sounds like a really good excuse to:

1. Use the washing machine.
2. Have Russell and/or Jane away from the dinner table for most of that Thursday evening. (Look out? Emergency procedures? Trouble-shooting?)

I do agree with your comments about Monday being probably a little more drama-packed than a visit to the supermarket.

One really does have to deconstruct what TM say.

IMO as always!

Totally agree - too much frenetic movement and strange behaviour all round.

Crackfox wrote:Totally agree - too much frenetic movement and strange behaviour all round.

Yes, confusion is good, remember? The more frenetic activity, the easier it is to create confusion and chaos and hide what is really going on. It creates a smokescreen. Having adults and children being ill creates a need for people to be in different places and different times away from the group. It also creates the need for frequent visits to apartments and for frequent washing.

Interesting these tweets re the pyjamas. Perhaps Ben can give us some more information re this...




Shazzy May‏ @may_shazzy



And isn't curious that the washed pyjamas that had the tea stain were neatly positioned and photographed on the blue sofa in 5a. Why would Kate or Gerry feel obliged to photograph the pyjamas at all? The pyjamas were significant. #McCann

















Anthony Bennett‏ @zampos · 2h2 hours ago


Yes. It's very strong evidence that
Madeleine #McCann was NOT alive when those pyjamas were photographed. And remember little Amelie: "Maddie's jammies"





rdoe‏ @xxMichelleSxx · 2h2 hours ago


But we don't know when the photo was taken so there's no way of knowing when surely? I wouldn't be 100 per cent certain on it to be fair... #McCann




Ms Myrtle Willoughby Cruft‏ @CruftMs · 2h2 hours ago



I agree we don't know when the PJs were photographed or by whom. The blue background looks similar to the couch but there's nothing to prove 100% who s PJs they were or when the photo was taken.






Bugsy‏ @TheBunnyReturns · 1h1 hour ago

Replying to @xxMichelleSxx @zampos and 4 others

There is. I've got all the info about who took the photo, and when. Bennett chooses to ignore all this though. People who disproved it were attacked on CMoMM and Teddy's blog. Teddy even deleted comments that disproved it. I'll do a blog over the weekend. #McCann

He says he's going to do a blog about it over the weekend.

Freedom wrote:He says he's going to do a blog about it over the weekend.

Yes, it's in the tweet above I know, but I just wondered whether if he drops in here he could explain.

I certainly don't believe the story of the photo being taken before, and pinned onto the sofa -  and have said so many times, but I cannot remember how it came about and who took it... I always believed it was put on blue screen for the papers and media to photograph it..

 Anyone remind me??  If not will wait for the blog.

Freedom wrote:He says he's going to do a blog about it over the weekend.

Who's he?

Heisenburg wrote:

Freedom wrote:He says he's going to do a blog about it over the weekend.

Who's he?

Ben Thompson, or Bugsy on twitter, of the Laidbare blogspot.

Ta muchly.

Tony Bennett states this on twitter..



Anthony Bennett‏ @zampos · 19m19 minutes ago

Replying to @nowayjomo @GlynisWinestein

Hmmm, that's what the #McCann's SAID. But it's the same pyjamas that A. were in the photograph with the blue background & B. that Amelie said were 'Maddie's jammies', NOT hers. Plus, look at the size of them in the press conferences of 5 & 7 June. They are too large for the twins










If as Tony Bennett and one or two believe that those were Madeleine's pyjamas, or even if they were Amelies, why on earth would the PJ go to the trouble of getting a pair from M & S to test for fabric composition etc.  Why not use those?   I remember this being stated in the media at the time. 

The pyjamas photographed I believe were those identical and from M & S and then pinned to the board for allowing media to take press photos.








From the files.....


1713    Letter 5 June 2007 requesting analysis of Marks & Spencer pyjamas, 2-3 year old, 97 cm
 TRANSLATED BY INES
 
 07 Processos Vol VII Page 1713

 07_VOLUME_VI1a_Page_1713
 
 To: Police Scientific Laboratory
 Lisbon
 5th June 2007
Subject: Sending of Pyjamas
 The present inquiry investigates the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007. I am herewith delivering to the Police Scientific Laboratory a pair of girl's pyjamas.
 The Pyjamas are from Marks and Spencers, size 2 to 3 years -97 cm.
 The pyjamas are composed of two pieces: camisole type without buttons and half sleeves, pink with designs, letters and tracing in white with (small) floral patterns, the right pyjama bottom leg has a design (smaller size) which is identical to that of the camisole.
 The pyjamas being sent are 'equal' in make, model, size, colours and designs as well as presumably the texture, to those the little girl was wearing at the time of her disappearance. The article sent serves for eventual comparisons with fibres collected by the competent officers of the Police Scientific Lab, within the scope of the current investigation.
 With compliments
 Signed
 The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
 Goncalo Amaral
 
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm

AMcC didn't say those were Maddies Eeyore jammies, she said Maddies jammies, which could have been ANY pair of Maddies jammies. JC didn't even say Eeyore jammies, he said when KMcC dressed A in Maddies jammies, A said Maddies jammies, where's Maddie? The word eeyore
was never mentioned! Why is that so hard to understand for some? Also, the pjs that were pictured on the blue background had a button =AMcs, not Maddies at all! Imo.

dogs don't lie wrote:AMcC didn't say those were Maddies Eeyore jammies,  she said Maddies jammies, which could have been ANY pair of Maddies jammies. JC didn't even say Eeyore jammies, he said when KMcC dressed A in Maddies jammies, A  said Maddies jammies, where's Maddie? The word eeyore
was never mentioned! Why is that so hard to understand for some? Also, the pjs that were pictured on the blue background had a button =AMcs, not Maddies at all! Imo.

Quite, and we don't even know if Amelie said that at all, we only have hearsay talk.. I certainly wouldn't call that evidence at all.

Anthony Bennett‏ @zampos · 11m11 minutes ago


MADDIE'S JAMMIES 1 Photo taken against blue sofa with hessian-type background, allegedly by the #McCann's on Thursday morning, 3 May, when Kate admits to washing Madeleine's pyjamas to 'wash out a tea stain'. Notice the wispy white cotton thread on the RHS leg, bottom of photo




No proof this was against a 'sofa' - pure guesswork

No proof taken by McCann's - pure assumption

And that wispy cotton thread is on AMs pjs, its on the photo that's on the blue background and it's on the pjs that the Mcs held up at the news conference, along with the button on the back that's designed for younger children. Imo.

This has just been posted up on twitter, the  promised blog re the pyjamas...….



Bugsy‏ @TheBunnyReturns · 8m8 minutes ago



NEW BLOG: Bananas for pyjamas - another #McCann myth.

https://laidbareblog.blogspot.com/2018/07/bananas-for-pyjamas-another-mccann-myth.html …

candyfloss wrote:I certainly don't believe the story of the photo being taken before, and pinned onto the sofa -  and have said so many times, but I cannot remember how it came about and who took it...   I always believed it was put on blue screen for the papers and media to photograph it..

 Anyone remind me??  If not will wait for the blog.

I haven't read all the blog (LB lost me when he started criticising TB's hair I'm afraid) so apologies if I'm answering something already answered but my memory is that the blue background was from when the evidence presented when the McCanns were on tour and this was a photo from there. I think it's on the blogspot.

Ben, I know you'll read this - I agree with Crackfox about the TB comments. Yes, I know all the lies that have originated in certain quarters but I think that criticism should be made only of a person's theories.

I'll have another go later of reading it.

Here is Dr Robert's theory:

http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-nightwear-job-by-dr-martin-roberts.html?m=1

Brilliant. Dr Robert's is so perceptive and a great writer.

Madeleine was not reported missing until close to 10.00 p.m. that night. If Madeleine McCann's pyjamas were not in fact abducted, then nor was Madeleine McCann.


Yes indeed.