Lying in the Sun

Guestbook Reply

Guestbook Reply

Anita as always thanks for your input.

Agreed it gets worse and worse!  

I agree also that if the Smith family saw a man carrying a child, there is always the possibility that that man was Gerry McCann (the buttoned trousers come to mind, and as I said also, I doubt that a 12 year old child would lie, or that her parents would put her through the ordeal of having to speak with police if she had not witnessed a man carrying a child, quite an ordeal for a 12 year old to speak to police if she had, more so if she had not and was trying to be dishonest with them.) What I don't think is that if it was Gerry McCann, that he was carrying HIS DAUGHTER, dead or alive.  

I base that partly on the Smith family (sorry cannot recall which specific members) having said the man whom they saw was carrying a child dressed in LONG SLEEVED CLOTHING.

In Andy Redwood's Crimewatch, Smithman sighting, the child is wearing LONG sleeved clothing.   

Madeleine WASN'T!   Not according to her parents.

Kate and Gerry McCann said she was wearing a SHORT sleeved pyjama top.  They produced and displayed for the purpose of the TV cameras a pair of pyjamas identical to those Madeleine was wearing on that night  - SHORT Sleeved.

Also, and interestingly so, on the Oprah Winfrey Show (the show the McCanns dashed across the pond to take part in, but not before instructing Isabel Duarte to commence legal action against Dr Amaral - see where their priorities lay, Amaral/money first, then Madeleine) Kate McCann claimed that the child Jane Tanner had seen being carried by Tannerman was BARE armed!

I don't recall Jane Tanner ever having stated that she had seen the child's arms?  Tanner as far as I am aware stated that she had seen only the bare feet of the child being carried.  No mention of her arms, bare or otherwise.

I'm sure if Tanner had spoken of bare arms, this would have been raised by the McCanns in every interview at every opportunity to re-enforce their story that Tannerman had carried off Madeleine.   

Kate McCann :

"... the child was barefoot and bare armed..."

A slip up by Kate McCann then?  Perhaps, or it could have been a deliberate act to mislead the audience, the viewing public, convince them that Tanner had seen a bare armed child when she had stated nothing of the kind? 

We have to remember that most who watched this Oprah interview would not be persons who followed closely this case, and it is this which in part allows the McCanns to lie in interview and basically get away with it either in the UK, the States or elsewhere.  They count on the fact that most don't follow it closely, and certainly most would not know what type of pyjama top Madeleine was wearing or was said to have been wearing.  So when Mitchell and the McCanns concoct stories such as this, much of it will be accepted as the truth of matters by those who haven't followed the case. 

The recent and tragic events, in which they quite evidently played their part, in connection with the death of Brenda Leyland - the perfect example.

They built a story full of untruths, Brunt triggered the bullets, and the public swallowed it hook line and sinker!  The crazy columnists came out, the usual culprits, and without investigating added their voices in condemning Ms Leyland.  

And that is what these people rely on.  Inventing stories which most people will not know cannot possibly be the truth.  

Brenda Leyland, a nice lady by all accounts, her name now associated as being a tormentor of these people, the McCanns.  All rather shocking, but that is how these people roll.

Almost 8 years this has been going on, and pretty successfully, until more recent times when persons such as Brenda Leyland questioned, challenged, and forcefully so, the downright lies, inconsistencies, the change of stories by the McCann party in connection with the very suspicious disappearance of their daughter.

It would appear that Brenda Leyland was seen by the McCanns as being a threat, someone who for the continuance of their abduction charade, required to be silenced by whatever means?  Certainly the Twitter platform ensured that the inconsistencies in the McCanns story reached a wider audience.  That would not have been received well by Mitchell and the McCanns.

Brenda Leyland was much too outspoken for their liking, and people were listening to her.

But back to the bare arms.   McCanns were heavily plugging the Tanner sighting as being Madeleine, so they needed ideally, this child to be wearing, SHORT sleeved pyjamas, have BARE arms!

As Tanner had NOT mentioned the arms of the child at all - Kate McCann embellished the story for her - she added bare ones!

If Tanner had said at any time that she had seen the child's arms, and that the child was dressed in a LONG sleeved top - that would have blown the idea of Tannerman being the alleged abductor right out of the water from the very start.  Not good for the McCann big bad abductor story.  

Bear in mind also, Tanner's story of a man carrying a child developed over time.   Lots of detail was added very much later.  Just like the stories by all of this group, through time they grew feet, legs, and ARMS - bare one's in some instances!

So what we have is:

  • Smiths, members of that family stating that the child they saw was dressed in a LONG sleeved top.
  • McCanns saying Madeleine wore a SHORT sleeved top.
  • Kate McCann saying the child Tanner saw was BARE armed.

not forgetting Kate McCann in her book Madeleine spoke of how 'she kept thinking of how windy it was that night and how Madeleine would be so cold in her SHORT SLEEVED Eeyore pyjamas and how she wished Madeleine was wearing her warmer Barbie pyjamas!'

Did the Barbie one's have LONG SLEEVES?

Based on the above statements, by Kate and Gerry McCann, the only logical conclusion anyone can reach, is that the Smith family did NOT see Madeleine being carried off, NOT if the child they saw wore a LONG sleeved garment!

Still leaves the question did they see Gerry McCann, and IF they did, he WAS NOT carrying Madeleine, not according to the description the McCanns gave police as to how their daughter was dressed when she disappeared!

McCanns of course could be lying
re which type of pyjamas Madeleine was wearing when removed from the apartment, and that would come as no surprise, as almost as much suspicion/mystery, surrounds these missing pyjamas, as exists around missing Madeleine's disappearance.

Logically also, IF we are to accept that the Smith family saw Madeleine, either they or the McCanns, LIED or were MISTAKEN as to that pyjama top!

I know who my money is on!

Kate McCann has built a whole story around the pyjamas, and I do question why?   

She has had more to say about them than she has her missing daughter, seems she feels more comfortable talking about them, than answering questions re the missing child.  In fact she doesn't have to be asked, be prompted, or encouraged to speak about them, she volunteers stories about these pyjamas, telling us that she felt it was right that she told police EVERYTHING - Everything about the pyjamas that is!

Yet when police asked her about her missing child - she told them NOTHING.  Refused to answer!

These missing pyjamas have more of a voice than missing Madeleine! 

Just as Crecheman can talk and tell us what HE SEEN on that night, and unless he is deaf, dumb, and blind, this guy CAN tell us what he saw (and inconceivable that he did not see or hear Tanner, Gerry McCann and Wilkins) the Pyjamas can talk too - through Kate the pyjama puppeteer.

But has the puppeteer spouted one pyjama tale too many, one tale too far rendering it NOT credible?  A YES from me!

Kate McCanns book titled Madeleine, contained little about her daughter Madeleine, but I am sure if she wrote a bewk on the life of the pyjamas, she would be able to fill it cover to cover. And the loyal but somewhat seemingly dim bunch that are their UK followers would eagerly await its arrival at their local bookstore, queuing for hours, happy to part with the £ in their pocket for their copy of Kate McCann's Pyjama Tales.  Be like taking candy from a baby from the bunch (Ducky I believe would receive a signed copy free of charge for services rendered)  

  • Chapter One -  Kate and The Mystery of the Stained Pyjamas
  • Chapter Two -  Kate Shock at Breakfast Maddie's Jimjams                                      Stained.
  • Chapter Three - Kate Fails to ask Madeleine About the Stain 
  • Chapter Four - Kate Fails to Check Stain Against Substances in                              5A
  • Chapter Five - Kate & the Mysterious Pyjama Stain 1 Hour On     Chapter  Six -  Kate Not Messin' Pyjamas Laundered
  • Chapter Seven- Kate Adds Some Stain Remover
  • Chapter Eight - Kate Angry at Portuguese Stain Remover (if this was any other country that stain remover would be more effective.  I'm only one doing anything pro-active re this stain)
  • Chapter Nine -  Kate Hangs Pyjamas Out to Dry.
  • Chapter Ten - Kate Astonished How Quickly Pyjamas Dry in                                  Portugal - by Lunchtime!
  • Chapter Eleven - Kate Dresses Madeleine in the Pyjamas
  • Chapter Twelve - Kate Puts Madeleine to Bed Dressed in Pyjamas
  • Chapter Thirteen - Kate Discovers Madeleine & Pyjamas Have                                      Disappeared (but has the stain?)
  • Chapter Thirteen - Kate & Windy Night, Fears Maddie Cold (in                                        Short Sleeved Eeyore Pyjamas)
  • Chapter Fourteen - Kate Wishes Maddie Wearing Warmer Barbie                                   Pyjamas
  •                                (Barbie beats Eeyore hands down every time)
  • Chapter Fifteen - Kate Tells Police About Vanishing Pyjamas
  • Chapter Sixteen - Kate & Jane Tanner Discover Telepathy
  •                               (without having colluded Tanner is able to describe Maddies Jimjams just as Kate did!  Awesome powers they have.  Funny if they'd gotten their wires crossed though and Jane 'saw' LONG sleeves.
  • Chapter Seventeen - Kate & Redwood at Odds Over Pyjamas.
  • Chapter Eighteen - Kate Angry at Redwood (he dressed                                                 Crecheman's kid in LONG sleeved pyjamas)
  • Chapter Nineteen - Kate Angry at Smithman (Smith's see LONG                                    SLEEVES)
  • Chapter Twenty - Kate slams Smith's, Redwood & LONG                                              SLEEVES - ('I know they were not long sleeved,                               I WAS THERE!')
  • Chapter Twenty-One - Kate's Key of the Door (sorry wrong book, that's a whole other story)
  • Chapter Twenty -Two - Kate can't make love to Gerry (all Maddie supporters feel your pain on that one honey)
And so the nonsense goes on!

I believe Anita the Pyjama Tales by Kate McCann are not true, but created to serve a purpose.

It is beyond believable that a parent/s would put their three year old child to bed in a holiday apartment, in a country unfamiliar to them, leave the apartment patio door unlocked, in a position whereby anyone, anyone at all could simply slide it open and gain access to the child, where the child, a child known to wake in the night, could slide the door open and exit the apartment into the dangers of the night, the street outside, that the child having been put to bed with clean unstained pyjamas, would rise from bed in the morning, a stain present on the pyjamas, and the parents did not question the child as to how the stain got there, that they did not discover what that stain was, is UTTER NONSENSE!

How difficult would it have been in a holiday apartment to discover what was that stain?  There would not have been lots of cleaning materials, and if there was, how reckless, negligent that the McCanns would leave their kids alone for any length of time in an apartment where their kids could access dangerous substances.  leave them in an apartment where the children could access kitchen cupboards, a fridge with glass bottles, jars, which a child could drop and break, a kettle boiling water, sharp knives, all instruments which could cause them harm.

What type of parent would not have spoken to their child asked about that stain?   And Madeleine was the McCanns tell us an extremely bright, intelligent and articulate child for her age, so no reason for her not to not have been able to explain.  If this child articulated that she and her brother had been crying when alone in the scary apartment, asked her parents why they had not come to attend to them, this child was perfectly capable of explaining to her parents - that stain!

What type of parent, knowing their child had been out of bed, and had accessed something which had caused this staining would walk out again that very night and leave these children in the very same vulnerable and dangerous position?

And when that child had not only a mysterious stain on her pyjamas, and knowing they had left her in an unlocked holiday apartment, and knowing she had asked them why they did not come when she and her baby brother had cried on the very night that STAIN had appeared on the pyjamas - WHY DID THEY WALK OUT AND LEAVE THE KIDS AGAIN?

And not forgetting, Kate McCann claims to have slept in the same room as the children that night, so that somewhat narrows down the time frame as to when these pyjamas became stained - somewhere between McCanns leaving the apartment on the night of the 2nd May and the time they returned.

Not forgetting also, the McCanns claimed on their checks (2nd) they found their children to be sleeping, and this is why they were puzzled as to when Madeleine and Sean could have been awake and calling out for them - remember that interview where they demonstrated their puzzled expressions? (McCann looked like Stan Laurel how could we forget) -

If the McCanns were puzzled as to when, what time that evening the children could have been awake, not accepting that they were awake and crying -  how in hell then do they expect anyone to believe that during this time Madeleine managed to get a stain on her pyjamas - was she sleep walking? 

That makes no sense - they're puzzled how she could have been awake but are happy to state in the same breath that during this very same period, a stain magically appeared on the kid's pyjamas!

Hell these two are something else!

Does anyone truly believe that these two doctors would do such a thing, walk out on their kids, knowing all of the above?  

Does anyone knowing of the above statements made by the McCanns, truly believe this couple, when they say, that they DID NOT give any consideration whatsoever to the safety of their children when left alone in this dark scary unlocked holiday apartment, that it felt so safe to leave them?


Such circumstances would have had any parent STAYING HOME to look after their kids, vowing never to leave them so vulnerable ever again!

I would say though as with most of the McCann stories, there is most always a little grain of truth and they build the lies around it.

With the pyjama tales, Kate McCann has however, tied herself up in knots for sure!   She/they cannot have it both ways or rather ALL ways


  • the kid was awake, out of bed, touched something in kitchen, cleaning fluid, tea, juice, whatever, and stained the pyjamas
  • she was sleeping throughout her time alone in the apartment, and she then in the morning invented her story about, crying out for mummy and daddy, and mommy Kate invented the stain story!
  • This child at some point when dressed in pyjamas was injured in some way/became ill and that stain was blood or some other body fluid perhaps after a crack to the head, and mommy dearest built her pyjama tale around this.

I lean towards the third one!

I would say Anita, if the Smith family saw Gerry McCann, and he was indeed carrying Madeleine McCann wearing LONG sleeved pyjamas, then the McCanns, the devious lady that is Kate McCann has been telling a whole lot of porkies re the pyjamas!

I would suggest that the pyjamas, of the style Kate McCann claims Madeleine was wearing on that night (short sleeved) is not a truthful statement.

Of course there is the time at which the Smith's saw the man and child.  Gerry has his alibi, his buddies!  But on their track record, truth not of importance to them, not a lot that they have said thus far has been truthful.  They cannot be believed.  And did not Dr Amaral state the 10pm mark, without re-visiting this timeline, with ALL parties taking part in a re-enactment could not be considered as completely accurate?

And on that count Dr Amaral is spot on, what else could he be?

Everyone, has worked on the timeline of the McCanns and their buddies, the persons who have lied in the case of this missing child. The persons who have the most to lose by doing a re-enacment, and they know it, knew it.  Why else did they refuse to help the police, refuse to help Madeleine.

The timeline has to be tested.   

I do not really go along with McCann carrying a child other than Madeleine, for me, a step too far, I think Kate McCann and her pyjama tales holds the key, to what the Smith's saw.  I do not believe Madeleine was dressed as they the McCanns have said.

If McCanns disposed of this child's body, how do we know she was even dressed in pyjamas?

I can see though how this theory, of some other child being used, would be considered, absolutely.  If this is what happened, I would think that child would have to have been Amelie, as I honestly don't see McCann openly carrying Madeleine, a dead daughter!  

And as you say Anita the child used would have to have been sedated. Such an easy thing for two doctors to do, or a group of doctors, which included anaesthetist/s!  And what you say would account for Amelie (and Sean) later not waking when lying in the cold room, wind blowing through, together with all the screaming, banging, shouting and mayhem which followed.

This group were not all close buddies, and it may be the case for some, that they became involved, accidentally so to speak, somehow got caught up in this, and for whatever reason still stuck together, but would any of them allow their child to be used in this way by McCann?

I wouldn't think so!

If I was to consider this though, I would surely have to go with Amelie, Madeleine's younger sister.

For sure Dr Amaral is correct - it is all in the timeline.

One thing for DCI Redwood to have dabbled with it in a way which arguably could work in two ways, one beneficial to McCanns, their story, but without it being put to the test, without him explaining how this alleged abductor gained access, unseen by the McCann group who stated they were all checking back and forth, without explaining how the guy exited, and at what point he opened the shutter and window, and at what time he opened that bedroom door (as McCann closed it over after his check, he said, and Oldfield said it was open again at his just shortly after- yet Redwood said the abductor did not strike until after Oldfield left) this would all have to be reconciled especially the time the guy supposedly left 5A to reach the point where Smith sighting took place.

Most all that has come to light in this case has been lies, cover ups - and what parents of a missing child, parents who had not two dimes to rub together at the time of their daughter's disappearance, employ at the cost of £hundreds thousands a spokesperson like the scum that is Clarence Mitchell to spin for them to protect them?  And that is what they have done for almost 8 years now.

I cannot think of any other case where two parents of a missing child, two parents who were not monied by any stretch of the imagination, could afford, and would consider a spin doctor as top priority?

Not under any circumstances would that take such priority for innocent parents. No, No, No!

It is an extraordinary case in many ways Anita, yet so simple and obvious in others, the lies by the main players the biggest clue of all, and it is this that leads the public to question why it has been made complicated, why police in the UK appear not to be seeing what is as plain as the nose on their face.

If they have not the evidence to allow for charges to be brought against perpetrators, after what, three and a half years of investigating - realistically how much longer can they continue with this?  

Cameron said it was open ended, but that is not how things work, no case can remain active indefinitely, and without the timeline being tested, in essence the McCann stories being tested, the many lies addressed there can be no proper and conclusion reached, never can there be true justice for Madeleine for what they did to her.

The truth of what really happened to young Madeleine when in the care of her parents and their buddies might never be known for sure, and if they or anyone else are ever to be convicted of crimes against this child, even then those responsible may not come clean as to where this child's body was dumped.

I believe the answer to the crimes committed against Madeleine lie partly (mostly?) in Kate McCanns Pyjamagate!

Many thanks again Anita for your thoughts.
17th January 2015

Website Builder