New blog under construction - bookmark it now
Friday 27 May 2016
Saturday 21 May 2016
Mirror, Mirror on the wall.........
It is very rare that I'll comment specifically on a newspaper article, mainly because they are usually unremitting shite, but I can't let this one go without adding a few words. This is from the Mirror on Sunday 22nd May 2016. I'll be editing out a few bits simply because they get a bit arsey about people lifting whole articles, but it won't significantly alter the piece
Okay, let's start there. After listening to the clip, it's clear she refers to the course of action as ''insane'' and not the parents themselves. So that's one fib for starters. Also, who the fuck are they to be 'blasting' her, even if she had referred to them as insane? They're the ones who got themselves into this shitstorm.Sharon Osbourne blasted by missing Madeleine McCann's parents after she brands them "insane" for leaving girl alone
Kate and Gerry hit back at 'ignorant' 'Ill-informed' star after she accuses them on TV
What, precisely, is ignorant or ill-informed about her comments? Well, let's see, shall we?
Outspoken star Sharon Osbourne has been blasted by the parents of missing Madeleine McCann after she branded them “insane” for leaving their daughter alone.
Yes, we've done that.
Former X Factor judge Sharon made the hurtful claims on her US chat show The Talk as she criticised parents for leaving children without supervision.
Hurtful? Well, the truth hurts. Tough titties.
In a clear attack on Kate and Gerry McCann, Sharon said: “I will tell you a very quick story. There was a husband and wife on holiday in Portugal.
“They left their baby in the room sleeping, sleeping while they went to dinner in the restaurant.
“While they were in the resort their baby was taken. And it is like, ‘Oh but we can see everything that is going on’ and it is, like, insane.”
I see no attack. I see a brief account of what took place. She didn't even name them.
They did leave the children in their room, sleeping
They did go to dinner
Their daughter did disappear at some point that evening
They did claim that they had full sight of the flat. That was a lie.
All I see is a perfectly factual description
The comments on Friday’s CBS show have outraged Kate and Gerry.
Have they? Have they really? Well, frankly, I don't give a shit. They seem to be outraged at everything that doesn't go their way, this pair
A family friend said: “It’s very disappointing when someone with such a high profile makes this sort of ignorant, ill-informed comment.
It isn't ignorant
It isn't ill-informed
It is absolutely accurate, according to the McCann's own statements
“She should think about the effect it could have on Madeleine’s brother and sister, as well as the wider family.
No, Mr and Mrs McCann. The only people responsible for the effect on the family are the two of you. Whatever happened to your daughter that night was precipitated or facilitated by your unfathomable parenting, so don't you dare blame others for the grief you have caused your relatives
“Kate and Gerry have never forgiven themselves and this should not have been aired in a random way, as it apparently was.
Nor should they ever forgive themselves. But they don't get to say when something is aired. The discussion was about parents leaving children home alone, like they did. If they didn't want to be part of the subject matter, they shouldn't have done it.
“It’s based on ignorance of the true facts. While she’s entitled to her view she should keep it to herself.”
It is not based on ignorance of the true facts. Those are the facts as recorded in their statements and reported by the Portuguese court
Of course she is entitled to her view and she is under NO obligation to keep it to herself. Who do you think you are? Do you think you can simply silence anyone who speaks about your case? You have a fucking nerve.
Maddie was snatched from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, in May 2007, days before her fourth birthday and has never been found.
Kate and Gerry were with other parents at a restaurant a few hundred metres away and the adults took it in turns to pop back to check on their kids.
Sharon, 63, and her panellists were discussing a thread on Mumsnet social media site. A British woman had asked if parents would leave a 10-month-old child sleeping peacefully at home for seven minutes.
In the UK there is no legal minimum age below which it becomes an automatic offence to leave children home alone, but the advice of government and child welfare organisations is that babies and young children should NEVER be left home alone, not even for five minutes
Another questioned whether it was acceptable to leave a baby sleeping while they picked something up approximately 50 metres away.
Reacting to the suggestion, mum-of-three Sharon said: “This is insane. It is like so many things happen in just a second. If you leave a candle on and the curtain blows on it and it caught on fire.
Quite right
“And I think of all these scenarios in my head and there is no way in a million years that you would ever do that.”
Good. All caring, responsible parents would, I'm sure, agree with Sharon on that.
Kate and Gerry, of Rothley, Leics, have previously admitted being plagued by guilt over missing Maddie
Days after her abduction dad Gerry said: “Hindsight has proven we made a mistake and we would never leave the children again.”
So he acknowledges they were in the wrong
And as Kate launched her book, Madeleine, in 2011, Gerry said: “Blaming us takes it away from the abductor. Someone stole a child. Of course we feel guilt. But it doesn’t bring the child back. So we tried to take control of things you can influence, to help the search.”
Well, to be strictly accurate, we don't know what happened to Madeleine, do we? There was no witness to any 'abduction'. It's conceivable she got out of the apartment, wandered off and ended up in the sea or falling into a hole. The police have also considered other scenarios, that she met with an accident in the apartment and someone removed her body. Of course, none of those things could have happened had you been there
Kate said: “People say, ‘Why didn’t you get a babysitter?’ Having a babysitter implied there was a risk situation and we just didn’t see it like that.
Excuse me? When is it 'not necessary' to have a babysitter look after toddlers when you go out to dinner?
Why does one engage a babysitter? To ensure there is someone to care for the children. To keep them safe. In case there is an emergency. In case they wake up and become distressed. To feed them, provide drinks or change nappies. To prevent abduction is well down on the list. Why? Because of all the things that could happen to an unsupervised child, that is one of the least likely
“We didn’t think it was necessary. It wasn’t to save money.”
You didn't think it was necessary? You didn't think it was necessary to have someone watch over three tiny infants and make sure they were okay? What do you normally do at home, Kate? Do you go out and leave the kids alone there?
But she later added: “It goes without saying that we now bitterly regret it.”
I bet you do. You've never urged others not to do it though, have you?
Cardiologist Gerry has also said: “Who’s thinking about child abductions in a little sleepy out-of-season tourist resort?
“It never entered our minds. We felt very safe — it was a family resort.
No, it probably wouldn't enter mine either - I'd be too busy worrying they might get out of bed, trip and fall, hurt themselves, try to run a bath and fall in, get into the kitchen and get hold of a knife, get out of the apartment through the door left unlocked and disappear into the street, get knocked down by a car, fall into the swimming pool.
So how come you weren't thinking of any of those dangers when you decided they were perfectly safe?
“At home you put your kids to bed and go off and do things about the house and garden and don’t think about it.
At home, yes. You are still on the premises.
“We were checking on our kids only metres away.
100 metres, Gerry. With a swimming pool, a wall and a road in the way.
After, we were consumed with guilt. But we can’t change it.”
No, you can't change it. But neither can you impose a worldwide opinion blackout because you don't like being reminded what you did
Sharon’s publicist was approached for comment but did not respond.
Probably just as well. So let me tell you what my response would be.
Sharon Osborne gave an accurate account of the lack of childcare provided for your three infants in Portugal.
You may not like it, but you have absolutely no right whatsoever to criticise her or try to silence her or anyone else, for that matter. As for saying she should keep her opinion to herself, my response to that would have been that I regard you as deeply irresponsible parents who are far more interested in your own reputations than you are in finding your daughter. I wouldn't let you look after a hamster, let alone a child.
I cannot imagine how you think these 'enraged' articles will help you. All they do is allow the world a little glimpse into your true character. It is not a pleasant experience.
One last thing -
What is not generally known is that you decided you were going to leave the kids home alone and dine out before you even left these shores. Before you knew in which apartments you would be staying. Before you had seen the resort. Before you knew how far away the restaurant would be. Before you had any inkling how quiet or busy it would be.
So don't give me all that ''it felt so safe'' bollocks. The decision was made before you landed in Portugal. You even tried to negotiate a discount because the resort didn't provide a baby listening service.
Tuesday 15 March 2016
Random moment no 3 - Pyjamagate
Pyjamagate has gone on long enough.
This is why.
I want to start by saying that I have never had cause to take issue with one of your articles before, and usually I find myself in broad agreement with you even if we differ on specifics. However, I feel this time you have strayed off the path and into the quagmire of complete speculation and pointless narrative. So, with respect, these are my views
It's not really important who created the photo which was released to the press. It could have been taken by any of the people helping them. To speculate it was taken in the McCann's apartment prior to Madeleine's disappearance is far-fetched. The pyjamas were those described by the McCanns as being Amelie's
Yes, quite probably
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.
Cobblers.
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.
Using the size 2/3 year pair sent to the PJ as an example, I calculate the overall length as around 50cm for the trousers and 35cm for the top. Allowing a 5cm overlap gives an overall length in wear of around 80cms, to fit a child to overall height 97cm (Obviously, they only come up to the shoulders)
The pair the McCanns showed were visibly smaller. For reference, using the most recent sizing information, the size for Amelie is designed to fit a child up to 90cm in height, and Madeleine's size to fit up to 98cm, so there isn't an enormous difference in size, just as there isn't an enormous difference in children at those ages
Therefore, unless you are suggesting that Gerry is under 5ft, your visual calculations are some way out.
You have made assumptions about who took the photograph, and where.
You have made assumptions about the different styles of neck and yet completely missed the fact that Kate clearly explained that the larger size had no button, as was quite clear from the pair received by the PJ
The replacement pyjamas sent to the PJ, in the size worn by Madeleine, are demonstrably bigger and different in style to those described as Amelie's. This is evident in the photos.
You have clearly not considered that the reason for the difference was that they were two different sizes.
There are several scenarios possible - both pairs were purchased at the same time, in different sizes, both pairs were purchased at different times in different sizes, or the smaller pair were originally Madeleines, passed down to Amelie, and a new, larger pair bought for Madeleine.
This is why.
A Nightwear Job
By Dr Martin Roberts
I want to start by saying that I have never had cause to take issue with one of your articles before, and usually I find myself in broad agreement with you even if we differ on specifics. However, I feel this time you have strayed off the path and into the quagmire of complete speculation and pointless narrative. So, with respect, these are my views
March 9, 2016Hang on - there is no actual evidence that the PJ didn't take the photo, is there? We'll return to this 'seed of doubt' later.
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?
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.
I think you mean ''chain of custody'' relating to evidence, which documents the movement of evidence through the system. I am not convinced that would apply to a photograph taken for the purpose of distribution to the media.
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?
That's because these pyjamas entered the chain of custody that applied to other physical evidence.
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.
Why on earth should the PJ have seemingly undertaken the same photographic work twice, involving two quite different sets of pyjamas?
Well, it's dated the 5th June, but anyway....
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.Correct. But what is your point?
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.And?
Okay - so this was 7th June, and photos have already been released of exactly the same pair. So what is the issue?
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.
You seem to be creating a mystery where none exists
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?
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?
It's not really important who created the photo which was released to the press. It could have been taken by any of the people helping them. To speculate it was taken in the McCann's apartment prior to Madeleine's disappearance is far-fetched. The pyjamas were those described by the McCanns as being Amelie's
Which release?
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.But we know this - we have always known it, so what exactly is supposed to be significant?
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). 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-one suggested that, did they?
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.
Yes. And? They never claimed it was anything but.
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):
Yes, quite probably
No, this is just ridiculous now. They had already provided the picture to the police, they clearly stated that these were Amelie's pyjamas, which were identical in most respects to Madeleine's.
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).
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.
Clearly, they had always had them with them in Portugal
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.
That's a completely nonsensical statement. They had a pair of smaller, but almost identical pyjamas and any number of people who could take a snapshot of them - what is the issue here?
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?
Yes, that's not difficult to ascertain - why should it be otherwise?
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.Well done. So what was all that guff about?
Oh don't be ridiculous. They were capable of making statements, of addressing the media, they were perfectly capable of taking or asking someone to take a picture
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?
You might. I'm not.
We begin to edge toward a sinister conclusion once we take particular account of the literal background against which these particular pyjamas were photographed.
No it doesn'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.
That is complete nonsense. The photos could have been taken anywhere - in an office, in one of the apartments MW provided for staff and family coming over - literally anywhere.
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.
They were being asked about something entirely different and you cannot extrapolate from one to the other
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:
He adds that it is:
No it doesn't! Anyone of a dozen or more people could have taken it
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:
That statement alone carries with it a very serious connotation. However, we still have a distance to travel.
Which image do you mean? I see nothing of the kind. Nor do I see anything to support the claim that the material was ''damp and clinging'' They are simply not terribly good photos.
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.
She was merely describing the difference between the two. Stop trying to read things that are not there
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:
Size matters
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).Yes, we know this. That presumably is why she pointed out the small differences
Well, again, it was the 5th June, but anyway....
On 7 May, the Sun reported that:
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:
Okay - let's stop you there. That isn't necessarily the case. If the style, fabric or composition had altered in the previous few months, M&S would have tried to obtain a pair identical to those on sale in 2006. There is no indication that the style had changed, or that sourcing stock from the previous year had been necessary
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.The sizing of children's clothes is somewhat arbitrary and age 2-3 is a guide. They were designed to fit up to height 97cm, so would comfortably have still fit Madeleine who was quite small. I do not understand your comment that Kate ''would have people believe'' that Amelie's pyjamas were smaller - why is there anything wrong with such a belief?
Had Kate purchased the appropriate pyjamas for Amelie in 2007 of course, they would not have had a button at all.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.
Cobblers.
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.
You don't know when they were purchased, other than it was before May 2007
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.
They do not show anything of the kind, that is complete nonsense.
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.
Using the size 2/3 year pair sent to the PJ as an example, I calculate the overall length as around 50cm for the trousers and 35cm for the top. Allowing a 5cm overlap gives an overall length in wear of around 80cms, to fit a child to overall height 97cm (Obviously, they only come up to the shoulders)
The pair the McCanns showed were visibly smaller. For reference, using the most recent sizing information, the size for Amelie is designed to fit a child up to 90cm in height, and Madeleine's size to fit up to 98cm, so there isn't an enormous difference in size, just as there isn't an enormous difference in children at those ages
Therefore, unless you are suggesting that Gerry is under 5ft, your visual calculations are some way out.
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.Nonsense.
No it doesn't
In conclusion, the McCanns' 'official photograph', first exhibited on 7 May, appears to be that of a damp pair of pyjamas,
too big to have been sensibly purchased for Madeleine's younger sister that Spring, and most certainly not the year before.Not the case at all
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.Completely irrelevant
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.You have no idea who took the photograph or with which camera
You have made several basic errors, in summary.
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.
You have made assumptions about who took the photograph, and where.
You have made assumptions about the different styles of neck and yet completely missed the fact that Kate clearly explained that the larger size had no button, as was quite clear from the pair received by the PJ
The replacement pyjamas sent to the PJ, in the size worn by Madeleine, are demonstrably bigger and different in style to those described as Amelie's. This is evident in the photos.
You have clearly not considered that the reason for the difference was that they were two different sizes.
There are several scenarios possible - both pairs were purchased at the same time, in different sizes, both pairs were purchased at different times in different sizes, or the smaller pair were originally Madeleines, passed down to Amelie, and a new, larger pair bought for Madeleine.
Sorry, I often agree with you. But not this time.
Martin Roberts
Wednesday 9 March 2016
Random moment no 2
Twitter loon and Creche register botherer Kikorattan shared this gem with his cerebrally-challenged followers
No. I would think he would say "Who the fuck are you and why are you ringing me?"
Then I think he would say "I am now calling the police. Kindly fuck off"
No. I would think he would say "Who the fuck are you and why are you ringing me?"
Then I think he would say "I am now calling the police. Kindly fuck off"
Thursday 3 March 2016
Random Moment No 1
Blogger, about a crime which happened in December 1996
"30 years on, no-one has ever been charged"
Reader 1
"By the way, it happened in December 1996 so it's nowhere near 30 years ago yet"
Reader 2
Reader 1 again
Blogger
Another reader
"You can't even get the basic fact right. It is not quite 29 years yet let alone 30"
"As I posted yesterday, the crime happened in December 1996 so it isn't 29 years either"
"Nearly 3 decades in the case of Jonbenet Ramsey, and coming up to one decade with Madeleine. Those being pedantic are missing the point"
"Oh, and troll, must try harder.You can't even get the basic fact right. It is not quite 29 years yet let alone 30."
It's 19 years ! It's 19 FUCKING years !
Sweet Jesus Christ, can none of you dozy bastards count?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)