Ponderings On Those Famous Pajamas And That Stain

                                                    Something to ponder.

Clothes based on a specific age range can be a bit hit and miss as children rarely follow a sizing norm.
As Martin rightly points out, when it comes to buying clothes for children, parents buy to fit and allow for a little extra growing room in order that the child gets to wear it for more than a couple of weeks.More so when money is a bit tight

Some may be wearing clothes are are a couple of ages bigger, IE, a 3 year old wearing clothes meant for a 5 year old or a 3 year old wearing clothes meant for a 2 year old.
Clothes sizes can also vary due to type of material, how they are cut (as with adult clothes some can be cut giving a generous size and others can be a smaller size and less forgiving.
M&S are generous in their cuts so a size 14 lady can perhaps get into a a size 12 or even a 10 (very good and a happy lady) whereas, a designer item could be skimpy on the cut and a a size 14 lady would need an 18.(very bad and an unhappy lady)
These things matter to us ladies.



According to kate's statement

10-PROCESSO 10 VOLUME Xa (Pages 2539 to 2551)
Kate Marie Healy's statement 06/09/07 @ 3.00pm

TRANSLATIONS BY CARMERINA32

KATE MARIE HEALY ' STATEMENT
(from DVD)

September 6/2007 3pm at Portimao

On May 3 they all woke between 7;30 and 8:00 AM; doesn't know who woke first. They washed the children and had breakfast at the apartment between 08:00 and 08:30 AM. Food bought by her and Gerry at Baptista supermarket. Previously they'd had breakfast at the Millenium, but as it was so far they'd decided to have breakfast at the apartment. During breakfast the 'crying episode', already described, took place. She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning. She hung it to dry on a small stand, and it was dry by the afternoon. Madeleine sometimes drank tea; the stain did not appear during breakfast, maybe it happened another day, as Madeleine did not have tea the previous night and the stain was dry.

The important little bit is this

During breakfast the 'crying episode', already described, took place. She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning.
Now this was allegedly what happened during breakfast may 3rd.

Looking at the picture of the pajamas at the top of this post, there is a clear stain on the neck of the pajama top which could be from spilled tea.
On the front of the neck in line with the gap at the back of the collar

Now, as pointed out above, why would someone, nay anyone, take a photograph of a pair of pajamas showing a 'tea stain'?

What parent sees a stain on the clothing of their child and decides
"Oh i must photograph it for posterity. Another one for the family album"

Unless it is something spectacular perhaps forming the face of a dead family member, Jesus or anything else relating to people, known as face pareidolia
Perhaps she took the photo in order to make a claim on a faulty item and demanding a refund, although why not take said item back to the store on discovering the stain on arrival at home?

There is simply no reason to take a photo given the above scenarios.

On the other hand, there is ample reason to take a photo if it will later be presented as an exhibit to the media and public.

There is ample reason to take a photo if there is an intent to deceive.

Why though would innocent parents go through all the rigmarole if they had no involvement in the 'disappearance' of their daughter?

The thought wouldn't even cross their mind.

Guilty people however, do things like this to either show evidence they could not have done such a crime, to mislead those investigating the alleged crime, to muddy the waters.
They would do so to preempt something else.

It could be claimed that these were not in fact Maddie's rather they were Amelie's.

How then would both Maddie and Amelie have tea stains on their pajama tops?

Kate told us that on the morning of may 3rd she noticed a tea stain on Maddie's pajama top.

She makes no mention of a similar stain being on Amelie's top.
However, kate  tells us:

"these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken."

Now, if kate is telling the truth, and i have to assume she is,

How could they be Maddie's since she would have been wearing them when 'abducted'.

If Maddie had been wearing a different pair of pajamas then the question would not have arisen since kate and gerry would be holding up a different pair of pajamas, the ones similar/identical to the ones Maddie was wearing when she was 'abducted'

If these were Maddie's, why were they not 'abducted' along with Maddie since she was wearing them?

Did the alleged abductor waste precious seconds taking her pajamas off?
If so, where were they located when kate 'discovered' Maddie was missing?
How come no one noticed these pajamas lying in situ?
How come these were not handed over as evidence to the PJ who could then do all the usual forensic tests to find out what happened and perhaps who did it?

Were these actually abducted and the pink blanket left behind and said abductor managed to sneak back into the apartment which, presumably, would be filled with police, the family and anyone else remotely involved, remove Maddie's pink blanket and return her pajamas all without being seen, heard or leaving any evidence of their existence?

Out of their own mouths comes ample evidence that Maddie is dead.
They knew she was dead from the get go of the 'alleged abduction'.
They were involved in her death as were possibly one or more of the tapas men since no mention has been made of the ladies doing the alleged checks on the children.
This also means they and at least one or more of the tapas 7 took action to conceal Maddie's body and then file a false police report.

In the following years, the mccanns and chums have also committed fraud on a grand scale in relation to the fund and also to claiming and winning damages against various media.

Keep talking chums, the more you speak the more you leak.
The more you leak, the closer the PJ will be to nailing your sorry asses for homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report.

The PJ may also press charges against the group and the various family members who showed up and made full use of the amenities at little to no cost to themselves, obtaining money and services by deception.

In the meantime SY would, and should go ahead with prosecuting the mccanns and chums as well as clarrie for fraud, obtaining money and services by deception and anything else to do with the fund.
Those involved in creating the fund (seriously £37000?)and running it.

I would also be interested to know if the States could also join in the fun and charge them with wire fraud, money donated to them via their website (darn that $ PayPal button.)

I then wonder that, when the stuff hits the fan and the tapas 6 (I don't think Diane Webster was awarded damages) are facing prosecution regarding the damages and are required to pay it all back along with interest and court costs, if they will demand the mccanns return the money the group so generously donated to the fund, in order to make their own repayments along with court costs etc.

Could it get to a stage where the mccanns get sued by the tapas 7, their former alibis, allies and friends?
Could it then end up with the mccanns suing the tapas7?

Could clarrie decide he is missing out and sue the mccanns?

Could the mccanns then end up suing clarrie for dropping them right in it when he opened mouth and inserted feet?

It could get quite interesting as well as messy once the infighting and blame game starts.

"So these are actually, apart from the size and the button on the back which Madeleine's doesn't have, these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken."
So is used to explain why something is/happened.
It answers the unasked question the subject expects will be asked.

Kate slips up here by not telling us these are identical or similar to the pajamas Maddie was wearing, she instead tells us the pajamas are the ones Maddie was wearing when allegedly abducted.
She uses the word actually which is a word indicating comparison between 2 or more items.

IE, I like vanilla ice cream, actually i like chocolate more.

This is also a sensitive statement since she uses the word actually twice.

The problem kate has is she twice tells us these are Maddie's pajamas whilst at the same time contradicting herself and telling us apart from the size and the button on the back.

As has been rightly pointed out, how can these be the pajamas Maddie was wearing when she was abducted when, presumably, said self same pajamas would have been abducted along with Maddie since she was wearing them.

Either Maddie was wearing them the night she was allegedly abducted, in which case:
How did the mccanns come across her pajamas?
When did they come across them?
Where did they find them?
Why were they not immediately handed to the PJ for testing and a fingertip search of the area conducted?

Or.
Kate and gerry removed the pajamas from Maddie's corpse before disposing of her.

Or kate and gerry are outright lying about what Maddie was wearing that night, in which case why the need to lie about something trivial unless. of course, there is something which was seen or found that would incriminate them.

With the mccanns it is always look over there not here, or look over here not over there.

There is a need to distract.

As an aside.

Eddie reacted to a child's red t shirt.
WHY would a child's t shirt be contaminated with cadaverine?

More importantly, HOW could a child's t shirt be contaminated by cadaverine?

Cross contamination perhaps if it was packed with other clothing (kate's pants) contaminated with cadaverine.

Why then only that item, along with kate's pants and no other items in the case?

Did kate take the t shirt to work with her alongside cuddlecat and it got contaminated the same way that cuddlecat did and kate's pants (allegedly according to sue healy)

The obvious conclusion is that the t shirt came into direct contact with the cadaver.
Maddie's lifeless body.
Either Maddie injured herself and died accidentally and for whatever reason happened to land on said t shirt or, and I am taking a big leap of judgement here, Maddie was actually wearing said T shirt.
A T shirt then later claimed to belong to Sean perhaps, or it was Sean's and Maddie at some point  was wearing it.

Why though was it removed from Maddie's corpse?
Was she wearing it as a pajama top perhaps?
Or, more likely, was she wearing it during the day and died due to nefarious deeds of a dastardly nature?
Since they claim Maddie was abducted at night from her bed, questions would be asked why she was wearing a t shirt as opposed to pajamas?
Yes, they could have claimed she liked it so much she wore it at night, however, muddled and panicked thinking may have been they have to show she died at night, thus claiming she was wearing pajamas.

T shirt is day wear, Pajamas are night wear

It probably made sense to them at the time.