Madeleines Pyjamas............

by YoullNeverGuess Today at 16:26

"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?' But she is too young to understand. And how do you explain? All we know is that Madeleine needs her family. She loves us, we love her. It is time for her to come home."

erm .... She was abducted wearing them remember

===============================================================
Personally I had thought that they had 2 sets of pyjamas...one for Maddie and another for Amelie....

Apparently not according to Uncle John!

"That was terrible for them," says John McCann, Mr McCann's elder brother, who has also travelled to Portugal to help search for his niece.

"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?'

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/05/14/1178995077373.html?page=3



Did Kate dress Amelie in Madeleine's pyjamas in order to 'hide them in full view' and to later be able to present them as similar, yet belonging to Amelie...(Uncle John could vouch for having seen her wearing them......but perhaps Kate didn't expect Amelie to announce in the presence of Uncle John that they were actually Madeleine's pyjamas)? If, as the police believe, Madeleine died in the apartment and as the result of an accident, it may have occurred earlier than she is said to have disappeared, and while she was dressed in her day clothes. The pyjamas might have been forgotten about at the time and not disposed of.....Kate might have decided to account for them by passing them off as Amelie's, not realising how developed little Amelie's abilities of comprehension were....

Ambersuz wrote:"That was terrible for them," says John McCann, Mr McCann's elder brother, who has also travelled to Portugal to help search for his niece.

"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?'

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/05/14/1178995077373.html?page=3



Did Kate dress Amelie in Madeleine's pyjamas in order to 'hide them in full view' and to later be able to present them as similar, yet belonging to Amelie...(Uncle John could vouch for having seen her wearing them......but perhaps Kate didn't expect Amelie to announce in the presence of Uncle John that they were actually Madeleine's pyjamas)? If, as the police believe, Madeleine died in the apartment and as the result of an accident, it may have occurred earlier than she is said to have disappeared, and while she was dressed in her day clothes. The pyjamas might have been forgotten about at the time and not disposed of.....Kate might have decided to account for them by passing them off as Amelie's, not realising how developed little Amelie's abilities of comprehension were....

This is total bollox, ameilie was too young to talk so coherently...more spin

Heya Tosca

I agree plus the fact that isnt it just lucky that they happened to have a set of pyjamas spare that Maddie was supposed to have been wearing!

She didnt dress Maddie and Amelie the same as you can see from all the other photos of them together...airport...playground etc....

Tosca wrote:

Ambersuz wrote:"That was terrible for them," says John McCann, Mr McCann's elder brother, who has also travelled to Portugal to help search for his niece.

"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said: 'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?'

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/05/14/1178995077373.html?page=3



Did Kate dress Amelie in Madeleine's pyjamas in order to 'hide them in full view' and to later be able to present them as similar, yet belonging to Amelie...(Uncle John could vouch for having seen her wearing them......but perhaps Kate didn't expect Amelie to announce in the presence of Uncle John that they were actually Madeleine's pyjamas)? If, as the police believe, Madeleine died in the apartment and as the result of an accident, it may have occurred earlier than she is said to have disappeared, and while she was dressed in her day clothes. The pyjamas might have been forgotten about at the time and not disposed of.....Kate might have decided to account for them by passing them off as Amelie's, not realising how developed little Amelie's abilities of comprehension were....

This is total bollox, ameilie was too young to talk so coherently...more spin

I remember this quite distinctly, the ones in the picture are Amelie's, Madeleine had a pair the same [common enough for sisters]. John said at the time that Kate was putting Amelie into a pair of Amelie's PJ's [maybe all of hers were in the wash] and Amelie said that they're Madeleine's PJ's and that she [Amelie] is a big girl now.

Yes it is very common...my sister and i are 2 years apart and we always got dressed exactly the same when we were small...but Amelie and Maddie in their past photos are never dressed the same...

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere on the forum.

We're receiving lots of comments on the book, not all of which I would bring here, but this one is in our opinion worth reproducing - and reproducing uncut.

There's an implied criticism of what we say in our book about Jane Tanner's claimed 'sighting' of the abductor, as s/he thinks we have missed a trick, and if this writer is correct, we shall no doubt amend that 'Reason' in any second edition of the booklet (which is looking quite possible now at the rate sales have been going in the first two weeks).

Here it is, we'd be grateful for observations:

QUOTE

Dear Ms Butler and Mr Bennett:

There is one matter about the pajamas Madeleine was allegedly wearing the night she disappeared and that Jane Tanner allegedly saw on the child she claimed to see being carried away that night, and this matter has not (as far as I can tell) been picked up by any investigator or newspaper anywhere. But in my opinion it is hugely important and points to Jane Tanner’s testimony probably being fabricated.

If you look carefully at the pajamas that the Drs. McCann held up at the press conference – apparently identical to those Madeleine was wearing on May 3, you’ll see that the pajama bottoms were short. If you look at the length of the legs, compared with the waist/width, they are clearly short: they would not have extended even to the child’s knees, and definitely not below them. They would probably have been mid-thigh length. They are very clearly not full/ankle-length pajama bottoms.

Now take a look at Jane Tanner’s sketch of the man she claims to have seen carrying Madeleine away, and read and listen to her claims of what she saw. In the sketch, the pajama legs come down to the child’s ankles. Tanner states quite clearly that she saw the ‘pinkish’ pajamas, and that she realized later that they must have been the PJs that Madeleine was wearing, based on the McCanns’ description of them.

However, IF it was Madeleine she had seen being carried away, Madeleine’s dangling legs (which are moreorless all that Jane Tanner could see of the child being carried away, based on her sketch and her description), would have been BARE. Her pajamas would not have reached below her knees – and especially if her legs had been bent over the carrier’s arms, in the way portrayed in the sketch.

In other words, the one IDENTIFIER that Jane Tanner uses to point to the fact that made her “realize” it was Madeleine, could not have been there. Madeleine’s lower legs would not have been covered by her pajamas. The pajamas just weren’t long enough.

I’m sure that Jane Tanner based her whole story/sighting on an oral description that the McCanns had given her of Madeleine’s pajamas – but they failed to mention a crucial detail: the length of the pajama bottoms. Why has no-one (including, apparently, the PJ or any of the investigators) completely discounted Tanner’s sighting based on this detail alone?

It seems so simple and yet so crucial in proving not only that Jane Tanner did NOT see what she claims to have seen, but that she misinterpreted information given to her (ie. a description of the pajamas M was allegedly wearing) to create her story, but got it wrong, therefore exposing herself.

I find it hard to understand why everyone is concentrating on things like the lighting of the evening (ie. how could she have seen ‘pinkish’ when there were sodium lights and it was so dark) and the fact that her sighting was so fleeting etc. - when she COULDN’T HAVE SEEN MADELEINE’S PAJAMAS ON HER LEGS AT ALL! The pajamas would have reached only down to above her knees, and therefore would NOT have been visible – and identifiable – to Jane Tanner if she had really seen Madeleine being carried away.

I really wish that someone would notice and comment on this crucial detail.

Sincerely,

Anonymous from New York

UNQUOTE



I've been saying this from the moment Tanner mentioned seeing the pyjamas....



by Ambersuz on Sat 23 Aug 2008 - 15:34
You're right....my daughter just left my house a few hours back and I cant remember what she was wearing...

OK here i keep repeating myself and have done for months but Jane Tanner could never have seen any part of the pyjamas.....

....the pyjamas were cut-offs....when a child has those on with legs bent they would NOT be down to the ankles.....they would ride up over the knees....

https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/key-main-characters-f12/jane-michelle-tanner-t329-15.htm

The pyjamas that Kate and gerry held up were Amelies right? Well maybe Amelies were 'cut-offs' and maddies were full length??

eddie wrote:The pyjamas that Kate and gerry held up were Amelies right? Well maybe Amelies were 'cut-offs' and maddies were full length??

Could be but she never mentioned that little fact at anytime....

Ambersuz wrote:

eddie wrote:The pyjamas that Kate and gerry held up were Amelies right? Well maybe Amelies were 'cut-offs' and maddies were full length??

Could be but she never mentioned that little fact at anytime....

Kazcut seems to be saying that Madeleine was wearing Amelie's jimjams

Angelina wrote:

Ambersuz wrote:

eddie wrote:The pyjamas that Kate and gerry held up were Amelies right? Well maybe Amelies were 'cut-offs' and maddies were full length??

Could be but she never mentioned that little fact at anytime....

Kazcut seems to be saying that Madeleine was wearing Amelie's jimjams

Well if she was then the bottoms would have been on her thigh...but if you look at the ones Kates held up they are cut offs!

I'll find the photo and add it here in a second!

Right down to the ankles....so it cant be!

Plus no logo thingy on the leg and the legs of the original ones are not tight so they wouldnt be tight around the ankle even if they were longer!

I was just thinking "jeez, you couldn't make this up" and then I realised "they probably have"

Angelina wrote: I was just thinking "jeez, you couldn't make this up" and then I realised "they probably have"

Well there's no doubt in my mind that someone mentioned those pyjamas to Jane and she went along with it but didnt think of the fine details....which isnt really that fine when you see one photo of them against the other!

Ambersuz wrote:

Angelina wrote: I was just thinking "jeez, you couldn't make this up" and then I realised "they probably have"

Well there's no doubt in my mind that someone mentioned those pyjamas to Jane and she went along with it but didnt think of the fine details....which isnt really that fine when you see one photo of them against the other!

There doesn't seem to be one thing with this case which is straightforward

Angelina wrote:

Ambersuz wrote:

Angelina wrote: I was just thinking "jeez, you couldn't make this up" and then I realised "they probably have"

Well there's no doubt in my mind that someone mentioned those pyjamas to Jane and she went along with it but didnt think of the fine details....which isnt really that fine when you see one photo of them against the other!

There doesn't seem to be one thing with this case which is straightforward

You got that right and what I dont understand is how they have gotten away with everything!

Just look at Casey Anthony...she was arrested for negligence and then that was lifted when they found DNA in the boot of the car even without the body being found!

There's alot more to this than we know but I bet someone has hit the nail on the head somewhere in a forum!

Will we ever know is another matter but I'm hoping we do!

Angelina wrote:

Ambersuz wrote:

eddie wrote:The pyjamas that Kate and gerry held up were Amelies right? Well maybe Amelies were 'cut-offs' and maddies were full length??

Could be but she never mentioned that little fact at anytime....

Kazcut seems to be saying that Madeleine was wearing Amelie's jimjams

I wanna puke when I hear her name. Is kaz still up her old tricks in making id's to idolise herself.

StGerald wrote:

Angelina wrote:

Ambersuz wrote:

eddie wrote:The pyjamas that Kate and gerry held up were Amelies right? Well maybe Amelies were 'cut-offs' and maddies were full length??

Could be but she never mentioned that little fact at anytime....

Kazcut seems to be saying that Madeleine was wearing Amelie's jimjams

I wanna puke when I hear her name. Is kaz still up her old tricks in making id's to idolise herself.

No idea but she seems to think you are

Angelina wrote:

Ambersuz wrote:

Angelina wrote: I was just thinking "jeez, you couldn't make this up" and then I realised "they probably have"

Well there's no doubt in my mind that someone mentioned those pyjamas to Jane and she went along with it but didnt think of the fine details....which isnt really that fine when you see one photo of them against the other!

There doesn't seem to be one thing with this case which is straightforward

i'm not so sure that those PJ's are cut-offs, they belong to a two year old, her legs wouldn't be very long anyway.

Allison wrote:

Angelina wrote:

Ambersuz wrote:

Angelina wrote: I was just thinking "jeez, you couldn't make this up" and then I realised "they probably have"

Well there's no doubt in my mind that someone mentioned those pyjamas to Jane and she went along with it but didnt think of the fine details....which isnt really that fine when you see one photo of them against the other!

There doesn't seem to be one thing with this case which is straightforward

i'm not so sure that those PJ's are cut-offs, they belong to a two year old, her legs wouldn't be very long anyway.

Theres' only one way to find out and thats to get some 2 year olds jimmies and check them against those but it looks like there isnt alot of room down the leg from the crotch area to reach down to the ankles after a nappy is on the child.