Why the Smith Sighting - and not the Last Photo - is the Key to the Madeleine McCann Case - Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Lots about the pyjamas here on this link. I have trouble with it all though, it is all pure conjecture.

Nightwear Job by Martin Roberts.

https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t245p25-only-in-america-blogspot?highlight=only+in+america+blogspot

... So a Smithman 10 thread has arisen. With yet another nonsense poll...

Will have to have a catch up on this latest garbage a bit later on then.

Have you ever seen somebody so desperate in trying to change other peoples opinions and perceptions on something... Anything. As I haven't. Ever.

Andrew I just can't fathom it out at all.  Does it matter  what people believe it won't change Op Grange findings.

I think it's because TB doesn't get the concept of a forum, he thinks of it as a blog with acolytes IMO.

Mimi, just want to thank u for the PB video, I thought it was very good.

No it won't change a jot, Inca. Although TB is sadly that deluded he probably thinks his repeated guff will actually make a difference.

It worries Team McCann that the Smiths saw Gerry.

It worries Team McCann that a lot of people out there think Smithman is Gerry.

It worries Tony Bennett equally as much as it does Team McCann. Hence this endless nonsense from him (after his court costs were reduced by 93%) to try and persuade anyone who looks into that forum that the Smiths are liars and there is absolutely no chance that Gerry can be Smithman.

Says it all to me and is very simple when you dust it all down.

IMO etc.

Andrew wrote:... So a Smithman 10 thread has arisen. With yet another nonsense poll...

Will have to have a catch up on this latest garbage a bit later on then.

Have you ever seen somebody so desperate in trying to change other peoples opinions and perceptions on something... Anything. As I haven't. Ever.

Such desperation is a red flag in my opinion - or perhaps one would say `a dead give away`. It`s to the point of obsession.

Translating the psychology it means TB is kidding himself and the Smiths are totally innocent and above board.

dogs don't lie wrote:Mimi, just want to thank u for the PB video, I thought it was very good.

I have always understood that the pyjamas displayed at the news conference were very similar, if not completely identical, to those that Madeleine was supposedly wearing. How anyone has got the idea that they are claimed to be the ones she was actually wearing I don't know.

Unless I got the wrong end of the stick, Richard D Hall said in his latest video something about the pyjamas still bore traces of dampness so they were the ones that Kate claimed to have washed in the morning of 3rd May. My mind blew at that point.

Don't worry Candyfloss you're not the only one whose head is being done in by all this nonsense!

Freedom wrote:I have always understood that the pyjamas displayed at the news conference were very similar, if not completely identical, to those that Madeleine was supposedly wearing. How anyone has got the idea that they are claimed to be the ones she was actually wearing I don't know.

Unless I got the wrong end of the stick, Richard D Hall said in his latest video something about the pyjamas still bore traces of dampness so they were the ones that Kate claimed to have washed in the morning of 3rd May. My mind blew at that point.

Don't worry Candyfloss you're not the only one whose head is being done in by all this nonsense!

Thanks I feel a bit better now, thought that I was going mad, glad to see others agree with me.

Freedom you are right, it is nonsense, but why is this happening?  Has everyone been brainwashed

I am sure that at one time it was said that depending what year they were bought ,would be same ,but different fastenings.the one held up and photographed was closed at back with one small button ,I think it looks like. But another style was anopening ,in another place .So I ask did they both have samecoloured p j 's but purchessed at different time ,so that could tell who had which from time bought? Did anyone else see this ? along time ago mind you . joyce1938

In regards to this pyjama stuff, then the Mc's were quick off the mark to describe Madeleine's pyjamas. The ones shown were identical to what Jane Tanner described. At this point they didn't know how much the Smiths saw. So they told the world these were M's PJ's and they were the ones (identical) to what M was abducted in (as backed up by friend, Jane Tanner). They had to be similar but slightly different to what M WAS carried away in on that ill-fated night. Same as JT's description of the 'abductor'. Similar but different.

If Jane Tanner was prepared to fabricate a sighting then I'm sure she would be prepared to lend a pair of her own daughters PJ's for the McCann's to instantly use and promote. After quickly washing them first of course.

Anything said by John McCann can't be used as 'fact' for starters.

Anyway - I can't remember Doc Roberts' article but now Match of the Day has finished then I'll have a read. But probably another day actually as it will involve some thinking and I'm pretty shattered now.  

Interesting that Blue Bag is asking the same questions and has posted up a photo that actually appeared in the Daily Mail when released with a BLACK background, so it begs the question, how did this background suddenly turn blue to match the sofa?  Here is the photo from the Mail..




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-454029/Search-Madeleine--police-release-pyjamas-wearing.html

I think Dr Martin Roberts has it pretty much spot-on in his reasoning of the pyjamas. I think the McCanns did photograph them in the apartment before the abduction scam. When, I'm not sure and don't think the washing of them is particularly relevant. It could have been done earlier in the week, on the morning of 3rd, or in the evening as part of the planning for the scam. It is interesting that this would mean the sofa had been upended. Was it hastily pushed back out of position to disguise where Maddie had been and/or because they were in a rush to get the photo done and continue with the performance?

I think the darkness of the blue hessian on the photo Blue Bag queried is simply down to exposure and filters. It was maybe dark at the time and artificial light makes colour emerge totally differently on photos. A quick enhancement shows the base colour is a match for the sofas in 5A.

All speculation and theory.

I'd go along with the above.

Kate claims she washed the pyjama top on the morning of 3rd because of an unexplained stain.

Dee Coy wrote:I think Dr Martin Roberts has it pretty much spot-on in his reasoning of the pyjamas. I think the McCanns did photograph them in the apartment before the abduction scam. When, I'm not sure and don't think the washing of them is particularly relevant. It could have been done earlier in the week, on the morning of 3rd, or in the evening as part of the planning for the scam. It is interesting that this would mean the sofa had been upended. Was it hastily pushed back out of position to disguise where Maddie had been and/or because they were in a rush to get the photo done and continue with the performance?

I think the darkness of the blue hessian on the photo Blue Bag queried is simply down to exposure and filters. It was maybe dark at the time and artificial light makes colour emerge totally differently on photos. A quick enhancement shows the base colour is a match for the sofas in 5A.

All speculation and theory.

I disagree Dee Coy, photographing pyjamas then passing them on to the PJ and press? Any cop worth his salt would question this surely, as in where and why it was done?

There's no way would they take a pic of her actual pjs, still damp from washing out the stain, in apt 5a on the actual blue couch were Eddie and Keela alerted!

The parents claimed the pyjamas were Amelie's.

I believe they are, the ones they held up are too small to fit Madeleine. Iirc, Goncalo also had pjs sent (was it M&S?) to him? When AMcM said "Maddies jammies" that could have been any set of her pjs IMO

Dee Coy

candyfloss wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:I think Dr Martin Roberts has it pretty much spot-on in his reasoning of the pyjamas. I think the McCanns did photograph them in the apartment before the abduction scam. When, I'm not sure and don't think the washing of them is particularly relevant. It could have been done earlier in the week, on the morning of 3rd, or in the evening as part of the planning for the scam. It is interesting that this would mean the sofa had been upended. Was it hastily pushed back out of position to disguise where Maddie had been and/or because they were in a rush to get the photo done and continue with the performance?

I think the darkness of the blue hessian on the photo Blue Bag queried is simply down to exposure and filters. It was maybe dark at the time and artificial light makes colour emerge totally differently on photos. A quick enhancement shows the base colour is a match for the sofas in 5A.

All speculation and theory.

I disagree Dee Coy, photographing pyjamas then passing them on to the PJ and press?  Any cop worth  his salt would question this surely, as in where and why it was done?  

No, it was passed to Leicester police who have a history of protecting the McCanns and withholding information from the PJ (Gasper statements and tardiness with Martin Smith's September statement). It is also LP who cite National Security as a reason for not answering FOI questions.

I think in this culture they would have accepted the photo from the McCann camp unquestioned.

dogs don't lie wrote:There's no way would they take a pic of her actual pjs, still damp from washing out the stain, in apt 5a on the actual blue couch were Eddie and Keela alerted!

Here's the proof that the photo was taken by the McCanns (probably Kate) and that the photo was passed to Leicester police (post from orginal thread Candy linked to above):

Dee Coy wrote:

Here's how the PJ got it:

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



Oddly, an 'add on' to a collection of photos given to Leicester police by Kate McCann on the 8 May 2007:

LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY Continuation WITNESS STATEMENT
INFORMATION FROM THE FAMILY
I spoke to Kate McCann on Tuesday 8th of May 07. She told me that a friend of her Aunt & Uncle from Leicester had a friend that had a strong vision that Madeleine was on a boat with a man in the Marina in Logos. 

This person arrived in Portugal and has spoke to Kate. They have visited the Marina and identified the boat as "SHEARWATER" They saw a man on the boat. but it was not the same man that she had in her vision.

This is very important to Kate. I spoke to Glen Pounder if he could make some enqs with regards to the boat.
He has done this and the boat is registered to a Canadian National called Bruce Cook. Glen has told me that George Reyes at the police Stn  is now dealing with the matter with record to doing dvc checks etc.

I spoke to Kate today and she has given me photographs of the boat. She has also given me photographs of a man who has been on the boat. This is not the man the woman had in her vision.
This matter is very important to her and she is very pleased that we are making enq's into the matter. Once the enq's have been completed can we please let her know the results.
Thanks 

So this photo was taken at the same time as the visit to Logos Marina, I would conclude. I can only assume it was included with the marina photos in error, as the report makes no reference to the pyjama picture, merely describing the Logos 'vision' and the boat.

Therefore it would appear conclusive that the photo was taken on Kate's camera prior to 8 May. When did the visit to Logos take place?

Luna wrote:I'd go along with the above.

Kate claims she washed the pyjama top on the morning of 3rd because of an unexplained stain.

. The story served 3 purposes Firstly to establish M was alive and well on Thursday morning. Secondly to hint that she may have been given something on the trial run by the abductor and thirdly to erase M's dna so they could claim the ones they still had were Amelie's.
What mother would bother washing a dried tea stain on a set of jammies when they would only be needed for a couple more nights. We know M had other pjs with her so if you felt you might need a second change you would have already washed the first set she wore earlier in the week.
If M died whilst wearing outdoor clothing I don't believe they would stop to change her into pjs post mortem when they had no intention of her body being found.

Luna wrote:@Freedom, the thread has disappeared, so members only can read.  Must have become fractious.

It's back again. I copy this remark from an unnamed moderator without comment.......

@pennylane wrote:
Added by a Mod:  The thread has recently seen a spate of quite ridiculous theories. The reason they are so absurd is that those members proposing them are fixated on one alleged, unproven 'fact' - namely the claim that the Smiths really saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine at about 10pm on Thursday 3 May. This is blinding them to the other evidence on the case. They try to fit absolutely everything around the controversial Smith sighting, and none of their suggestions seem to work.

Dee Coy wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:There's no way would they take a pic of her actual pjs, still damp from washing out the stain, in apt 5a on the actual blue couch were Eddie and Keela alerted!

Here's the proof that the photo was taken by the McCanns (probably Kate) and that the photo was passed to Leicester police (post from orginal thread Candy linked to above):

Dee Coy wrote:

Here's how the PJ got it:

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



Oddly, an 'add on' to a collection of photos given to Leicester police by Kate McCann on the 8 May 2007:

LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY Continuation WITNESS STATEMENT
INFORMATION FROM THE FAMILY
I spoke to Kate McCann on Tuesday 8th of May 07. She told me that a friend of her Aunt & Uncle from Leicester had a friend that had a strong vision that Madeleine was on a boat with a man in the Marina in Logos. 

This person arrived in Portugal and has spoke to Kate. They have visited the Marina and identified the boat as "SHEARWATER" They saw a man on the boat. but it was not the same man that she had in her vision.

This is very important to Kate. I spoke to Glen Pounder if he could make some enqs with regards to the boat.
He has done this and the boat is registered to a Canadian National called Bruce Cook. Glen has told me that George Reyes at the police Stn  is now dealing with the matter with record to doing dvc checks etc.

I spoke to Kate today and she has given me photographs of the boat. She has also given me photographs of a man who has been on the boat. This is not the man the woman had in her vision.
This matter is very important to her and she is very pleased that we are making enq's into the matter. Once the enq's have been completed can we please let her know the results.
Thanks 

So this photo was taken at the same time as the visit to Logos Marina, I would conclude. I can only assume it was included with the marina photos in error, as the report makes no reference to the pyjama picture, merely describing the Logos 'vision' and the boat.

Therefore it would appear conclusive that the photo was taken on Kate's camera prior to 8 May. When did the visit to Logos take place?

Thank you for that Dee Coy, but my guess would be it is a photo probably taken by the PJ and has found it's way into the wrong file, as simple as that?  That is why it is not mentioned at all in the write up.

Freedom wrote:

Luna wrote:@Freedom, the thread has disappeared, so members only can read.  Must have become fractious.

It's back again. I copy this remark from an unnamed moderator without comment.......

@pennylane wrote:
Added by a Mod:  The thread has recently seen a spate of quite ridiculous theories. The reason they are so absurd is that those members proposing them are fixated on one alleged, unproven 'fact' - namely the claim that the Smiths really saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine at about 10pm on Thursday 3 May. This is blinding them to the other evidence on the case. They try to fit absolutely everything around the controversial Smith sighting, and none of their suggestions seem to work.

Just proves that their forum is the `Ministry Of Truth`.

Can you imagine Candyfloss insisting on all posters sticking to her own thinking and bullying or banning people that disagree with her?