Sunday, 29 July 2018

Bananas for pyjamas - another McCann myth.

Once again, Tony Bennett - the bungling buffoon with a history of ham-fisted failures, and a litany of lies linked to his name - has been desperately promoting mis-information as he continues with his wholly transparent quest to convince others of a theory that holds less water than than a sieve in the Sahara. Last week, the corrupt coward with a centre parting as wide as a gate was, once again, trying to frame Robert Murat, by attempting to lure others into believing that the discovery of a match between Mr Murat's mtDNA and that of Jane Tanner, was something of great significance. It wasn't. It isn't:

Link to twit longer post on mtDNA

Over the years we've seen Bennett stalk a family named Smith, whom he assumed was the family that saw a man carrying a small child toward the beach, the night Madeleine was reported missing. It took the 'super sharp' Bennett, two years to finally accept he'd got the wrong Smith family - he doesn't like to talk about it now.

Much the same as he doesn't like to talk about his lies regarding Gerry McCann and Robert Murat's phones being "switched off" for the same 32 hour period.

Bennett states - as fact, that on the 2nd May 2007, and between the hours of 3:44pm for Robert Murat, and 3:49pm for Gerry McCann the mobile phones of both men were completely switched off for 32 hours. Again this is nonsense; the phones were activated several times during the said period, as shown in the files:

Link to phone data relating to Robert Murat

Robert Murat's phone activated at 16:11 May 2nd, 09:19 May 3rd, and 11:31am May 3rd. It's all in the files, and can be found on the link above:

For a long time now - certainly since he agreed to an out of court deal with 'Team McCann", resulting in an uncharacteristically generous reduction of 93% of the costs he was ordered to pay the McCanns, by Mr Justice Tugendhat - Tony Bennett has relentlessly, and unashamedly flooded the internet with what is broadly described as"fake news".

Shining a light into a dark place

If we were to check the secret diary of Tony Bennett, today's entry would only differ from any other, in subject matter alone:

"Dear diary, this morning I awoke to glorious memories of watching the late film on Movies for Men - Confessions of a Driving Instructor, whilst the main character was in no way believable (does that matter), it stirred me to attention nonetheless. I rose, out of bed, wiped the sleep from my pathologically, predator-like eyes, brushed my teeth, both sides of my spookily large, unevolved skull, and concentrated on the job in hand. That done, I set about my mission, to divert all attention from the days leading up to Madeleine McCann being reported as missing. My weapon of choice today was, a blog about pyjamas, wondering how many I could fool, and feeling inspired by still being sat in my own jammies, I took to Twitter..."

...and take to Twitter he did. Despite many finding gaping holes in the pyjama blog, Bennett did as he always does. He spammed the McCann tag with lies, and mis-information, as if repeating them, would suddenly make them true.

Some time ago, myself and my good friend, Syn0nymph, found several glaring errors with the research and conclusions drawn, in the pyjama blog. When we presented the facts however, rather than admit publishing false information, the owner chose to remove our comments from their blog. The author also refused to remove or correct their misinformation. We'll now look at the blog entry in its entirety. Knowing that some idiots will draw comparisons to the Not Textusa style of blogging, and not giving a rats what the half-arsed want to invent, I'll interject along the way (my comments in black, the pyjama blog in blue):

"A Nightwear Job
By Dr Martin Roberts
March 9, 2016

As published in the Telegraph

"Author unknown

In the very nearly nine years since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and the eight since the parents had their arguido status formally withdrawn, one simple question has passed publicly unanswered, probably because the answer appears obvious and the question therefore not worth the asking. I shall ask it nevertheless:"

"Who took the McCanns' 'official photograph' of Madeleine's pyjamas?"

They weren't Madeleine's, they were Amelie's, and it was a professional photographer named Luis Forra. A quick Google search, shows that Mr Forra has photographed various crime scenes in The Algarve.

"The image in question was 'released' to the world's media in the late afternoon of 10 May, 2007, following a press conference that day. It was no doubt assumed by many that, since the PJ released the photographs (there is more than one), the PJ themselves must have taken them. Yet a film distributor who arranges the release of a 'blockbuster' is hardly likely to have spent the previous months/years actually doing the filming."

It wasn't the PJ who took the photograph, nor was it the McCanns. It was Luis Forra.

"With this seed of doubt in mind, one might consider what the PJ did with their photograph(s), adhering all the while to the worldwide practice, among law enforcement agencies, of 'continuity', whereby the progress of evidence through the system, in whichever direction, is recorded at each step along the way. Whereabouts, then, did they file this particular 'diligence' of theirs?"

There is no seed of doubt. As can be seen by the following links, the EPA clearly credits the photographer as being Luis Forra:

The same image is also used here on the Policia Judiciaria website (archived version as the original is no longer available) 

"Within the relevant Forensic report (23 November 2007) are references to the following images, together with cognate views of a pair of pyjama trousers:"

"A far cry from earlier publicised representations you will admit."

Yes, because as you know, it's a different photograph and a different set of pyjamas.

Why on earth should the PJ have seemingly undertaken the same photographic work twice, involving two quite different sets of pyjamas?"

They didn't undertake the same photographic work twice. Luis Forra took a photograph of Amelie's pyjamas that were, as you say above, slightly different (smaller, and with a button at the back). The set directly above however, were provided upon request from Marks and Spencer, and were a closer match to the pair of pyjamas that the McCanns claim Madeleine was wearing, the night they reported her missing. Not only that, but as I recently learned from NT, the pair sent from Marks and Spencer for evidential purposes, were entered into a chain of custody

"The forensic record (of garments correctly pictured alongside a scaling reference, i.e. a ruler) is that of a pair of pyjamas supplied on request by M&S (UK), afterwards forwarded to the Forensic Laboratory in Lisbon by Goncalo Amaral, together with a covering letter dated 7 June. It has nothing whatever to do with the official photograph released in early May. In fact the clothing pictured has more in common with that featured in the retailer's own contemporary stock photograph, a copy of which was sent to the Algarve Resident, again on request, and which the 'Resident' published on 8 May - two days before the official release."

As published by the Algarve Resident

During a press call at the Amsterdam Hilton, on 7 June, Kate McCann took pains to explain that the pyjamas being exhibited at that time were in fact Amelie's, and that Madeleine's were not only bigger but did not feature a button-fastening t-shirt. Only a couple of days earlier the same pyjamas, again described as 'Amelies' and 'a little bit smaller', were presented on 'Crimewatch', but without reference to the button discrepancy."

So, perhaps Kate gave a more accurate description the second time around? 

"It stands to reason of course, that, Madeleine McCann's pyjamas having been abducted, a surrogate pair would have been required for photographic purposes, in the event of there being no extant photographic record of the clothing in question. But appropriate photographs were to hand. They already existed. One version, as we have seen, was published by the Algarve Resident, another by the BBC. The McCanns' 'official' version was consistent with neither of these. With the PJ yet to physically access a representative set of pyjamas, why should they have been called upon to photograph anything else for immediate release?"

I'm not sure what point the author is trying to make here, but I've already covered why there were different photographs.

"There is no record of their having done so. Ergo they did not. So who did? And where did the pyjamas come from that enabled them to do it?

Addressing the second of these questions first, the garments featured in the PJ release cannot have come from M&S locally, since all their Portuguese branches had been closed years before. Had they come from M&S in the UK they would obviously have resembled the pair sent to (and genuinely photographed by) the PJ. A pointer to their origin is, however, to be found within the case files."

It isn't.

"Alongside a suite of photographs taken at Lagos Marina by Kate McCann is an introductory memo, written by DC Markley of Leicester Police on or about the 8 May and headed up, 'Information from the Family'. Here also one finds the only copy (in black and white) of the McCanns' official photograph of Madeleine's pyjamas (Outros Apensos Vol. II - Apenso VIII, p.342). "

At this point, it must be questioned as to why the author has not displayed the aforementioned photograph in the blog, nor have they posted a link to the page in the files. I'll add it below, because there is a big clue to be found:

The fact the photograph of the M & S supplied pyjamas is the only photograph on this particular page to have the official PJ 'Ministerio Publico De Portimao Proibida A Reproducao' mark, yet the ones taken by Kate McCann, of yachts in the marina don't, should tell you something. Contrary to the claims of the author, Kate McCann didn't take the photograph of the pyjamas.

"Rather than its being a PJ production, afterwards passed to the McCanns, it seems the photograph was actually a McCann production fed to the PJ, an observation wholly concordant with the fact that it was actually the McCanns who first revealed this photograph to the press, on Monday 7 May, three days before the PJ released it (as reported by Ian Herbert, the Independent, 11.5.07)."

*No image had been released by the McCanns, if it had, then why are there no variations of that specific image, appearing in any MSM articles written between 7th May, the day of the McCann initiated press appeal and the 9th May?

The reason, is that they did not release an image. What they actually did was give a verbal description of what Madeleine was allegedly wearing when she went missing.  Some newspapers make reference to it, but others do not

"Her family confirmed she was wearing white pyjama bottoms with a small floral design and a short-sleeved pink top with a picture of Winnie the Pooh character Eeyore.

The pyjamas, bought in Marks and Spencer last year, had the Eeyore written in capital letters."

"No mention of what Madeleine was wearing."

"No mention of what Madeleine was wearing."

"The direct appeal was the idea of Mrs McCann and her husband, Gerry, rather than of the Portuguese police. The couple also released a description of the pyjamas Madeleine had been wearing when she was taken as her parents dined at a nearby tapas bar. In contrast to normal British police procedure, Portuguese officers did not issue a description of Madeleine's clothing."

*On Thursday 10th May the PJ released an official photograph of similar pyjamas to the press and  launched their own Missing Page for Madeleine on the PJ website. This is verified on the link below:

MSM ran with the photo for the next few days.

"An official photograph of the pyjamas Madeleine was wearing when she disappeared was also released."

"Portuguese police have issued an image of a pair of pyjamas identical to those which missing three-year-old Madeleine McCann had been wearing when she disappeared."

"A picture of the pyjamas she was wearing when she vanished has been released."

Google searches confirm that there are NO images that match or are a variation of the photo released by the PJ anywhere on the interwebs prior to 10th May so the author is wrong when they claim that  the McCanns released it on the 7th May.

Interestingly, the BBC ran an article on 8th May which contained this photo of Eeyore pyjamas  but it is not the same as any variation of the photo released on the 10th. Origin unknown, but looks like a journo managed to get hold of a set to take a photo of for the article.

"Madeleine's family have confirmed she was wearing white pyjama bottoms with a small floral design and a short-sleeved pink top with a picture of Winnie the Pooh character Eeyore when she disappeared."

Going back to what Martin Brunt said, which got the author all fired up:

"The Portuguese police are another lot who don't want to tell anyone what they are up to. Okay, they have a judicial secrecy law, but should that have stopped them making public appeals for help in tracing a missing three-yearold? A news conference was an alien concept to the beleaguered detectives searching for Madeleine McCann, but they were eventually badgered into one. It ended in chaos, live of course, and we learned very little from it. The McCann family themselves had to issue pictures of their daughter and the pyjamas she was wearing on the night she disappeared."

As I have demonstrated, the claim that they issued a photo of pyjamas is simply untrue.  They gave a description of them to MSM yes, but that was all.  The PJ issued an official photo on 10th May 2007.

"Any illusion that the image in question was the result of a McCann representative's commissioning their own studio photograph of 'off-the-shelf' UK merchandise may soon be dispelled. It is an amateur snapshot. Taken in ambient (day) light, against a coloured (as opposed to neutral) background, it is slightly out of focus and displays detectable signs of parallax. It is not something even a journeyman professional would admit to.

And yet, bold as brass, it represents 'information from the family'.

Perhaps it was produced by a member of the McCann entourage that descended on Praia da Luz over the long weekend 4-6 May? Then again, perhaps not. As Kate McCann explains in her book, 'madeleine' (p.109):"

No, it was taken by the PJ.

“Everyone had felt helpless at home and had rushed out to Portugal to take care of us and to do what they could to find Madeleine. When they arrived, to their dismay they felt just as helpless – perhaps more so, having made the trip in the hope of achieving something only to discover it was not within their power in Luz any more than it had been in the UK.”

On Kate McCann's own admission, to a House of Commons committee no less, neither she nor husband Gerry were any more capable of keeping cool under fire during this time. Having earlier (August 2007) told her Pal, Jon Corner, "the first few days.…you have total physical shutdown", she went on to advise the House that, despite being medically trained, she and her husband "couldn't function" (John Bingham, the Telegraph, 13.6.2011)."

The author cannot have this both ways, it's widely known that Kate's claims of not being able to "function" were, to say the least, very wide of the mark, but that's by the by. 

"Well someone on the McCann side of the fence managed to function in time for the parents to appear before the media on 7 May with a photograph that, so far, no-one seems to have taken, and of clothing which, other things being equal, ought not even to have existed anywhere inside Portugal, except, perhaps, in the clutches of a fugitive abductor. But, of course, other things are anything but equal."

You're back to the photograph of Amelie's pyjamas, we've shown was taken by Luis Forra now.

Non mihi, non tibi, sed nobis


"A month after the world's media were first shown a picture of something resembling Madeleine McCann's 'Eeyore pyjamas', a real set was being touted around Europe. Described by Kate McCann as 'Amelie's' and being 'a little bit smaller', they were held aloft for the assembled press brigade, without any one of them questioning the pyjamas' origins either. Being 'Amelie's' was quite enough, apparently, to justify their also being in the McCanns' possession at the time. Since when though? Gerry McCann did not return home to Leicester from Praia da Luz until 21 May, time enough for him to have raided his daughter's wardrobe for something he might need on his European travels, but way too late to have met any 7/10 May deadlines."

Eh? If they were Amelie's - and let's be clear, the author has shown nothing to convince us otherwise, why the hell would anybody need to return home, or have them brought to PdL. Amelie was in Portugal, ergo, her pyjamas were as well. 

"It seems, then, as if the two ingredients required to achieve an earlier photograph of 'Madeleine's' pyjamas (the photographer and the subject) were both missing. So how was it done?"

They were Amelie's

"What at first appears to be a riddle is soon solved when one realises that the pair of pyjamas which accompanied the McCanns around Europe was the very same pair that starred in their 'official photograph' taken earlier. Kate McCann took public ownership of them before the television cameras the moment she referred to them as 'Amelie's'. On close inspection these pyjamas (Amelie's) are revealed as identical to the pair previously pictured in both the Daily Mail (10.5.07) and the Telegraph (see top of page here), down to the stray threads dangling from both upper and lower garments. This means that 'Amelie's pyjamas', for want of a better description, were also present with the McCanns since the start of their Algarve holiday."

Yes, they were Amelie's, and were already in the Algarve.

"As published by the Daily Mail

Suddenly the question ceases to be 'Who photographed a representative pair of Eeyore pyjamas?' and becomes, instead, 'Who photographed Amelie's pyjamas?' Furthermore, if everyone was feeling so shell-shocked as to render them incapable from the Friday, when did they have the presence of mind to take the requisite pictures?"

The McCanns didn't take the photograph, Luis Forra did.

"We begin to edge toward a sinister conclusion once we take particular account of the literal background against which these particular pyjamas were photographed."

Not on this occasion we don't.

"A coarse woven tale

Unlike the various studio renditions of Eeyore pyjamas to which we have been introduced, the McCann's official photograph(s), versions of which were published by both the PJ and the UK media, present the subject laid out against a blue textile, rather than the more customary piece of artist's board. This blue upholstery, for that is unquestionably what it is, helps define who, among the Tapas 9, might have been the photographer."

Again, it wasn't any of the Tapas 9. It was Luis Forra, and the background colour of the pic was never originally the shade of blue the author has presented it as. 

"The Paynes, the Oldfields and the O'Briens can be ruled out. Only the Payne's apartment incorporated any soft furnishings in blue, but of a different quality to the plain open-weave material on display here. During the early morning of Friday 4 May, 2007, the McCanns were re-located to alternative accommodation in apartment 4G - another in which blue soft furnishings were conspicuous by their absence (it was appointed in beige throughout).* Added to which the concern, lest we forget, is with photography involving a pair of pyjamas known to have been in the McCanns' possession from the outset."

The Paynes, the Oldfields, and the O'Briens can be ruled out because it was Luis Forra. That aside, the pyjamas were not photographed on the back of the sofa.

"#In his statement to Police of 10 May, Gerry McCann as good as exonerated himself of all blame concerning picture taking:

‘Asked, he clarifies that:

apart from the personal photos already delivered by him to the police authorities after the disappearance of his daughter MADELEINE, he has no others in his possession. 

He adds that it is:

his wife KATE who usually takes pictures, he does not recall taking any pictures during this holiday, at night.’

This really is nonsense. Gerry McCann was asked a question, he answered it. Not only that, but the author, perhaps deliberately, has misquoted Gerry. What he actually said was:

He does not remember if anybody in the group took photographs that night."
The way the wording was altered, gave the quote a whole new context, but we're not dealing with honest people, so there you go. I ask the author, does Gerry McCann strike you as the type of bloke who wanders about with a camera, taking "proud dad" photos of his kids and friends? No? Then I would suggest his answer (on this occasion), was an honest one

Notwithstanding accounts of how, from the Friday onwards, the McCanns, their nearest and dearest, all fell mentally and physically incapable (of anything save visiting the pool, the beach bar, and the church on Sunday morning), Kate McCann early on made a very telling remark, concerning photography, to journalist Olga Craig:

"I haven't been able to use the camera since I took that last photograph of her" (The Telegraph, May 27, 2007).

That statement alone carries with it a very serious connotation. However, we still have a distance to travel.

The more contrastive of the two images reproduced here displays what appear to be areas of shadow, when in fact there are no local perturbations at the surface of the fabric to cause them. Similarly, the dark bands traversing the t-shirt appear more representative of what is actually beneath it. These visible oddities suggest the material is in fact damp and 'clinging' to the underlying upholstery."

It really doesn't. The author is slowly winding up to conclude that the pyjamas the McCanns stated belonged to Amelie, were actually the very pair the parents claimed Madeleine was taken in, had been washed then, whilst still damp, and photographed by them for public release - I know, lunacy right?  This is despite the pyjamas not looking "damp" at all, and having plenty of time to dry in any case. 

"There is, as we know, an anecdote of Kate McCann's, which sees her washing Madeleine's pyjama top on the Thursday morning. As re-told in her book, she does so while alone in the family's apartment:

"I returned to our apartment before Gerry had finished his tennis lesson and washed and hung out Madeleine’s pyjama top on the veranda.

Size matters"

It does, as we'll find out.

"As previously stated, Kate McCann was careful to bring the attention of her Amsterdam Hilton audience, to Madeleine's pyjama top being both larger and simpler than the version she was holding in her hands at the time. She was inviting them instinctively to associate garment size with complexity - the larger the simpler in this instance. It would mean of course that Madeleine's 'Eeyore' pyjamas, purchased in 2006, would not have been absolutely identical with those of her sister Amelie, purchased whenever (but obviously before the family's 2007 holiday on the Portuguese Algarve)."

"On 7 May, the Sun reported that:

"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."
In his 7 June covering letter to the Forensic Laboratory in Lisbon, Goncalo Amaral conveys the following specification in relation to the pyjamas he was intent on sending for examination:"

"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"

"Since these items could only have been supplied to the PJ in mid-07, they must have represented that year's style, as it were, for 2-3 year olds. Madeleine would have been four years old by this time. However, Kate McCann would have people believe that 'Amelie's' pyjamas, sporting a button, were designed to fit an even younger child. Had Kate purchased the appropriate pyjamas for Amelie in 2007 of course, they would not have had a button at all."

At this point, I'd like to quote the words of Not Textusa, who also tackled this topic two years ago, and kindly allowed me to refer to their findings:

"Absolutely not. This is where you have made your most fundamental error.

You seem to have decided that the lack of a button on the PJ's pair was because of a style change from one year to the next.


If that was the case, how did Kate know That Madeleine's pair lacked a button? Or, that the pair the PJ would receive would also lack a button?

The use of buttons and other fastenings on children's clothes may vary from size to size for good reasons, to do with the ease of dressing a smaller child and having a neck hole big enough to easily slip on without being too big to fall off their little shoulders, trousers that allow room for a nappy etc. As the child gets a bit older, designers will adjust styles so that children can start to dress themselves, in which case a pull-on style is easier.

I have no idea why you made an assumption that the button was removed due to a style alteration, when the most likely situation is that the smaller size has a button and the larger size doesn't."

"They must therefore have been purchased in the same epoch as Madeleine’s own, i.e. during 2006, when Amelie would have been a year younger and somewhat smaller even than when the family eventually travelled to Portugal the following year."

No, NO! Without a receipt or researching if the button was included on a younger size, and if not, when it was included, you can't put a date to the purchase. For all the author knows, Amelie's pyjamas could have been bought in a slightly larger size than she required - kids grow.

The significance of all this becomes apparent once we consider those photographs which show how the pyjamas held aloft by the McCanns at their various European venues encompassed half Gerry McCann's body length at least. Photographs of the McCanns out walking with their twins in Praia da Luz, on the other hand, illustrate, just as clearly, that Amelie McCann did not stand that tall from head to toe. Even In 2007 she would have been swamped by her own pyjamas, never mind the year before when they were purchased.

In conclusion, the McCanns' 'official photograph', first exhibited on 7 May, appears to be that of a damp pair of pyjamas..."

It doesn't.

"...too big to have been sensibly purchased for Madeleine's younger sister that Spring, and most certainly not the year before. The subject is set against dark blue upholstery of a type not present in any of the apartments occupied by the McCanns or their Tapas associates immediately after 3 May. Kate McCann has explained, over time, how she was alone in apartment 5A that morning, in the company of a damp pyjama top (having just washed it) and how, from that afternoon by all accounts, she 'couldn't bear to use the camera', an automatic device (Canon PowerShot A620) belonging to a product lineage with an unfortunate reputation for random focussing errors."

Oh come on. Yes, Kate said she couldn't take any photos with the camera after the final photo, but to suggest she meant from the second that final photo was taken, is just barmy! 

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.

The author has failed to provide a single piece of evidence, or an inexplicable oddity. The only mystery, is why anyone would go to such lengths to build a theory based upon lies. 

"Martin Roberts

*See the extended search videos here:

Grateful thanks are due to Nigel Moore for collating a number of highly relevant photographs and media reports in connection with this topic."

By all accounts, Nigel Moore distanced himself fully from the author as a direct result of the direction they were heading with this. It's easy to see why.

The blog then has several rather embarrassing photoshop efforts attached. One of those pictures (left) couldn't be any more misleading if they'd tried (oh wait they did). What the people behind this blog entry are trying to suggest, is that Madeleine only had one pair of pyjamas in Portugal (the Eeyore set), and that Kate almost dressed Amelie in them after Madeleine had disappeared, only to be stopped by Amelie saying, "Maddie's jammies!"

The following was a comment from Syn0nymph, and was one of many, swiftly deleted by the blog owner. See if you can see why:

"Just one pair of pyjamas taken for Madeleine?  Do you not read your own blog posts you two? Clearly not, or maybe you just conveniently forgot that you had previously posted articles showing that Madeleine also had a pair of long sleeved Barbie pyjamas in PDL.

Did you forget also this article from the Telegraph?

'The McCanns still cling to the hope that their daughter is still in Portugal, which is why they intend to keep their base in the country. And when they moved to an apartment near to the one from which Madeleine was abducted, they unpacked their missing daughter's clothes, too, laying out her pyjamas on what would have been her bed.'

And this from The Mail:  

'..she tells of how windy it was, and says she kept imagining how cold Madeleine would be in her short-sleeved  Eeyore pyjamas, and wishing she’d had her warmer Barbie pyjamas on.'

And this from The Mirror:

'It is believed the entire Portuguese case rests on DNA evidence from body fluids which allegedly suggests that Madeleine's corpse was carried in the boot of the McCanns' hired Renault Scenic.

But the McCanns say the fluids probably came from Madeleine's unwashed pyjamas and sandals which were carried in the boot when the family was moving apartments.'

The author posted in the very blog we find the pyjama entry:

'Then there's John McCann's jocular little reference to Kate's dressing her younger daughter in Madeleine's pyjamas, whereupon the toddler says, 'Maddie's jammies'.

Very touching. But, for a barely two-year-old to recognise 'Maddie's jammies', there had to be something distinctly recognisable about them, which there would not have been if the only difference was a v. small one of size, plus a missing button!

No regular two-year-old would be so astute as to say, "Maddies jammies", while thinking, 'I know, because mine have a button - hers do not.

Common sense says that Amelie will have said what she said because the pyjamas that Kate McCann dressed her in were the Barbie pyjamas, NOT the Eeyore ones that were identical to her own apart from the button. Sheesh.  Granted, I do find it odd that Kate McCann would want to put them on Amelie but hey ho.

And yes Mr Roberts, I am reaching out to Mr Forra regarding the pyjama photo.  My email to him is currently being translated into Portuguese by a friend before I send it to him :)

I don't expect that my post will last for long on this blog as it is clear that the blog owner will not allow any comment that goes against anything that does not fit with her idea of truth so I will be doing a blog post of my own in the forseeable future :)

I am a died in the wool 'anti' Hate that phrase to be honest, prefer pro Madeleine and as I previously said on this blog I don't doubt for a second that there is more to all this than meets the eye but I will not stand by whilst misinformation is bandied about.  Ohh but the blog owner deleted all my previous comments didn't she?"

Now why would you remove such an inarguable set of facts? Only one reason dear friends, and it sure as hell isn't to promote the truth.

So we've dealt with the who, the when, and the why, but as this theory unfolded, it became clearer as to what the author was trying to convince people of.

Upon being asked by someone reading the blog "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?"

The author replied "Yes, I am."

What follows is a lot of discussion as to whether the blue sofa in question, was the one in the McCanns' apartment. Well, it wasn't. It couldn't have been.

So let's start there, and use a photo of Eddie searching 5a.

The average height of a male springer spaniel is 48 - 56cm.

Given those measurements, and taking the lower figure of 48cm in order to favour the author's claims, we can calculate the length of Eddie to be somewhere in the region of 85.8 cm.

We can calculate the length of the seating cushions of the blue sofa, shown below with Eddie:

Eddie's height                       = 156 pixels
Divided by 48cm                   = 3.25
3.25 pixels                           = 1cm

Seating cushion length          = 278.9 pixels

278.9 divided by 3.25             = 85.8

It can be assumed therefore, that the sofa cushion was a minimum of 85.8 cm across.

Using Martin Roberts' own research (which I have checked), we have the following measurements for Marks and Spencer pyjamas.

M & S (Thursday 18 March 2010)

‘Autograph’ pyjama sets (children’s)

Age 1.5 - 2 years (height 90 cm.) Top: 42cm. Trousers: 46 cm.

Age 2.0 - 3 years (height 98 cm.) Top: 42 cm. Trousers: 52 cm.

Age 3.0 - 4 years (height 104cm.) Top: 44 cm. Trousers 55 cm.

Top to bottom ratios: 1. (1.5-2) 91.3% 2. (2-3) 80.77% 3. (3-4) 80%

M & S (Friday 19 March, 2010)

‘Autograph’ pyjama sets (children’s)

Age 12 - 18 months Top: 40 cm. Trousers: 41 cm.

Age 1.5 - 2 yrs. (height 90 cm.) Top: 41 cm. Trousers: 48 cm.

Age 2 - 3 years (height 98 cm.) Top: 44 cm. Trousers: 52 cm.

What all this means of course, is that the pyjamas in question could have never been laid on the sofa without the cushions being removed, otherwise the gap between cushions would have been clearly visible. It isn't.

It has been suggested, that the sofa could have been flipped over, and the pyjamas laid upon the rear. It seems totally ludicrous that Kate or Gerry would go to the effort of flipping a sofa, or removing cushions, in order to take a photo. Why not use a bed,  the coffee table, or the dining table?

It's inconceivable that the sofa would have been flipped, or cushions removed, with so many other, easier options available. Besides which, in the original photograph the background wasn't blue!

You'll remember, if you have the memory of an elephant, that at the beginning of this blog, I told you that when we tried to point out the facts of the above matter to the author and the blog owner, the vast majority of Syn's comments were removed. Furthermore, both people used that to their advantage by pretending Syn had never corrected them, misrepresenting her remaining comments, and (on the blog owner's behalf) resorting to verbal abuse, simply because she was absolutely right. I hope I haven't lowered myself to that level as far as those involved in the pyjama blog are concerned, and if I have, then they'll have to deal with it. Tony Bennett on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish. He's knowingly promoted misinformation as fact for years, this muddying the waters for anyone trying to understand the case, and has been involved in the most disgusting and downright dangerous behaviour myself, and many others have ever encountered.

With thanks to Denise aka Syn0nymph, and the Not Textusa blog.


  1. Has there been any reply from Luis Forra?

    1. No. The email was sent, but we didn't receive a reply.