Lying in the Sun


Hand-Me- Down?

I read today an article by Dr Martin Roberts - A Nightwear Job.  

Admittedly I read it, and then thought 'I'll have to read that again' to be sure I was taking on board what he is saying/suggesting.  And I will indeed do that as soon as.

I have always thought his articles insightful, though on an odd occasion, I was left not quite knowing what he was getting at, or that it was just a tad off the wall.

Whilst I would be the first to agree the pyjama tale by Kate McCann is but that, a tale, like much of what she has spouted since the disappearance of Madeleine, stories which usually have a grain of truth but which she manipulates to fit whatever is her agenda, I cannot be in complete agreement with Dr Roberts on this occasion.

As I said, I will have to read once more the article, but what struck me absolutely is idea that these pyjamas were absolutely Madeleine's and not Amelie's?

This, if I am understanding correctly, is based on the pyjamas which were held up for the press by the McCanns, being for a child aged 2/3 years of age.  The article stating that this particular style of pyjamas dated from the season pre January 2007.

The implication is, that as Amelie was not 2 years old until the February of 2007 then, her parents would not have purchased for her, in 2006 a pair of pyjamas for a child aged 2/3 years old.

  • But what if the McCanns purchased these pyjamas for Madeleine when she was 2/3 years of age? 

  • What if these pyjamas were purchased early 2006 before Madeleine's 3rd birthday in May 2006, when she would have required pyjamas for an age 2/3?  And reportedly Madeleine was not tall for her age.

By May 2007 Madeleine could have outgrown the age 2/3 years size, pyjamas, and her parents could have bought her a new pair, and the pyjamas age 2/3 years then quite likely would have been handed down to Amelie!

That is what happens, if not in most, in many families.  Clothes are handed down from one child to another.

So why not this set of pyjamas?

Yes they may still at the time of May 2007 been slightly too big for Amelie (that's the nature of hand-me-downs ) but they would also have been more than a tad too small for Madeleine by May 2007, who at the time of her disappearance was days away from her 4th birthday! 

Now from what has been reported the McCanns did not have two dimes to rub together at the time of this holiday in May 2007.

Those who have followed the case will most probably recall a statement by Kate McCann (from her book perhaps?) where she made a big thing over an outfit she had purchased for Madeleine for the holiday, stating that it had been a bit pricey but she had nevertheless splashed out (not verbatim but something along those lines) as she liked it so much.

At the time I read this, I thought she had pretty much made, what to me at least seemed like a pretty much run of the mill purchase, not something that would break the bank, but if the McCanns were short on cash, then perhaps to Kate McCann she'd purchased for Madeleine something spectacular and expensive!  Fair enough.

To my knowledge, what we did not hear, was of any wonderful purchase she had made for Amelie for that holiday.  

Was that because there was no necessity to purchase for the younger daughter in the same way, as she would have plenty of Madeleine's hand-me-downs, including Madeleine's old pyjamas?

And if the McCanns were short on cash, they would not be up for buying new pyjamas or any other clothing item for Amelie if she could have Madeleine's old ones.

And to those of us who were on the receiving end of hand-me-downs as kids, we will remember all too well our older sibling getting something new!  

Also with the greatest respect and with no wish to demean in any way the clothing choices for the McCanns kids, but all pictures I have seen of Madeleine she is wearing clothing that was ill fitting, way too big for her.  So did Kate McCann, in general purchase items of a larger size for her kids, or did someone give the McCann family hand-me-downs for Madeleine?

If so, nothing unusual then about the jimjams being passed to Amelie and being too big!

As for pyjamas with or without a button.  Often the different sizes in children's clothing for the same item (sold in the same season) have slight differences, be that buttons, bows or whatever.  Items of a particular style can also can be bought online only, and not available in store and vice versa.  And items from a specific season can at times still be available the next.   And sometimes parents buy, when there is a sale, items for their kids to be put away until the following year, when they reach an age when item they will fit the child. Especially when the kids are so young that is not uncommon, to put by, clothing bought in a sale until the child is of an age that the item will fit.

And I would imagine that more than one pair of pyjamas would have been taken on holiday for each child surely for a week long break?

So which is it?

Madeleine at 4 years old was on holiday with a set of pyjamas way too small for her, OR her sister Amelie was perhaps, on that holiday, wearing Madeleine's hand me downs, a set of pyjamas that were still at that time a bit too big for the child?   The nature of hand-me-downs!

McCanns like any other family, I am sure, had the younger daughter wearing the clothes outgrown by the eldest!

It is perfectly possible that the pyjamas were at one time Madeleine's and had been passed down to Amelie, as they don't exactly look new!

Or were McCanns that skint that they were squeezing Madeleine into jimjamas way too small for her?   Madeleine at that time would be wearing pyjamas for a 4 year old or 4/5 year old.  There's a big difference between a size for a 4 year old and a 2/3 year old.

Easier for Amelie to wear a pair too big, than for Madeleine to wear a pair way too small!

And for that reason I cannot agree completely with Dr Robert's!

Of course I may have completely misunderstood this part of the article - the sizing, style and season of the jimjams!

And of course I will read again the article.  

If Madeleine was murdered by this alleged intruder on the night of her disappearance/soon after, chances are, if found, she would be wearing her pyjamas (if pyjamas are what she was wearing when removed from apartment)

If taken by an abductor to be kept alive, the pyjamas would have been disposed of as soon as, and the child dressed in some other garments.

Kate McCanns pyjama tale, while not being the complete and honest truth, it will have elements of truth.  It is just figuring out which bits are the lies, which bits are the truth, and the WHY behind the bits that are lies!  

But for sure Kate McCann has led everyone a merry dance with her pyjama tales.  A tale that started on the morning of 3rd May 2007 when she introduced the stain, and oh how the story grew from there. She'll have her reason for inventing this little tale, a tale she just
had to tell the police she said as she wanted to be up front and honest, and it might have been relevant to the case said she.  

Sadly she didn't find answering the 40 questions put to her by Portuguese Police to be relevant to the case but her crazy story of a stain on a pair of pyjamas, one she couldn't identify and one she didn't know of how it got there, and didn't think to ask Madeleine, we are expected to believe and feel it relevant?

Two doctors who could not identify a stain on their child's jimjams?

Kate McCann:

"The only other unexplained detail I remember from that morning was a LARGE brown stain I noticed on Madeleine’s pink Eeyore pyjama top. I couldn’t recall seeing it the night before and I had NO idea how it might have got there. It looked like a tea stain. Gerry and I do drink quite a  bit of tea, and Madeleine, too, would have the odd small cup. So at the time I just assumed it was a drink spillage that had escaped our attention, and that might well be all it was. But now, of course, we can no longer make assumptions about anything that can’t be accounted for..."

 Pull the other one Kate McCann!

  • Two parents, two doctors who couldn't identify a tea stain?
  • Two parents, two doctors who both managed, when putting their daughter to bed, to miss A LARGE BROWN STAIN ON HER PYJAMA TOP?
  • Two parents, two doctors, who abandoned their kids in an unlocked apartment, next morning kid has LARGE BROWN STAIN ON HER PYJAMA TOP, and neither of them think to ask the kid how it came about?
  • Kate McCann claimed to have slept in SAME room as Madeleine that night.   
So if NO LARGE brown stain on the pyjamas when kid was put to bed. Couple hours later Kate McCann arrives back at apartment, sleeps in SAME room as her daughter.  Daughter gets up in morning, LARGE BROWN STAIN on jimjams, then logically (going along with Kate McCanns story) the stain the spillage occurred between the time the kid was left on her own and the time Kate McCann returned to sleep in the room.

And if Madeleine was up and out of bed during that time (
crying incident time, and Madeleine always got up to go look for her parents when she or her siblings were crying and upset) and spilled something, then the evidence of such spillage would be there to be seen on McCanns return to the apartment.

YET, here we have Kate McCann telling the world in her book 'Madeleine' that at the time of writing, the STAIN on Madeleine's pyjama top was still considered an UNEXPLAINED DETAIL, and that they can no longer MAKE ASSUMPTIONS.



You have to fuckin laugh at the gall and lies of this female and the sheer stupidity of anyone who believes that two doctors, two parents could not identify a tea stain!  

And if they couldn't and didn't seek to find what else that LARGE BROWN STAIN might have been then THEY PAIR OF THEM ARE NOT FIT TO BE PARENTS.

They had according to their tale, left their kids alone in the apartment.


How many brown substances were in that apartment that Madeleine could have spilled on her jimjams?  They must have fuckin' known!

How hard in a vacation apartment would it have been, by a process of elimination to discover which of any BROWN SUBSTANCE (or any substance that would leave a brown stain) Madeleine could have had access to in their absence and spilled?

Would a child of Madeleine's age if she had spilled something, then cleared it up before mummy and daddy came back from the bar?

And if Madeleine (though doubtful) was partial to a SMALL CUP OF TEA, I'm darn well sure she must have spilled a few of those small cups down her small pyjama top before that vacation in Portugal, and mommy dearest would know a tea stain when she SAW ONE!

And when such young kids spill stuff down their clothes, chances are, in the case of jimjams that not only the pyjama top was splashed with tea or whatever, the bottoms also.

McCann states in her book -  'a tea stain might well be all it was?'

Well knock me down with a fucking feather:



I have addressed this issue many times in various blogs, and in fact only recently did so.

Kate McCanns pyjama tale is so far out, so farcical that no one with a working brain cell could possibly believe it.

She said IN REFERENCE TO THE STAIN, they could NO LONGER MAKE ASSUMPTIONS.   But her story is created for that exact purpose, so that the reader/listener to her tale will make the assumption that if she COULD NOT IDENTIFY a tea stain then the stain had to be something more sinister.  

The woman is dangerous and devious!

And if she had not noticed it the previous night then it could not have been there, as how could she have missed such a stain when she dressed Madeleine in the pyjamas for bed?  How could they have missed the LARGE BROWN STAIN?

That is exactly what she wants the world to believe that THEY could not have missed the stain before leaving their kids alone that night.

So IF the stain magically appeared on the pyjamas when she and Gerry McCann were out enjoying themselves then a BIG BAD MAN MUST HAVE GONE INTO THE APARTMENT AND PUT A BIG BROWN STAIN ON MADELEINE'S PYJAMAS, one that WASN'T TEA,THE NIGHT PRIOR TO HER CHILD DISAPPEARING!  

No one was to think not even for a second that the kid might have gotten out of bed and spilled something, no, no no.

And no one was to dare think that Madeleine, being partial to a small cup of tea might have gotten out of bed and tried to make one! 

It can only be, it has to be, A BIG BAD MAN WHO DONE IT, WHO MADE THAT LARGE BROWN STAIN.  One who returned the following night and took Madeleine FROM HER BED, never to be seen again!

Whether Kate McCanns pyjama tale was only to serve the purpose of planting the idea in the minds of the public that someone was in that apartment the night prior to Madeleine's disappearance is anyone's guess.


No way on this earth is it possible that DOCTOR Kate McCANN and DOCTOR Gerry McCANN could not identify whatever the alleged stain might have been.  And no way would responsible parents in the circumstances not seek to discover what that stain was, not ask the child.

Shed load of shit that story.

Apologies for digressing!

I hate to say it, but I feel Dr Robert's article has really just caused confusion, it doesn't make matters any clearer.  Too many cooks spoil the broth they say, in this case, too many pairs jimjams makes the story more unbelievable than Kate McCanns version!  And when one strays from logic... it is far from helpful!

And whatever pyjamas (if any) Madeleine was wearing at the time of being removed from the apartment really makes not a hoot of difference to the case, to her ever being found.  Knowing the type of pyjamas wouldn't lead to the missing child, but the unravelling of the story created by Kate McCann re the pyjamas (and all of her other tales, crying incident included) would do exactly that.

Up to the Met Police, but not a chance in hell of them doing that.

And as to the Kate McCanns comment that she wished Madeleine had been dressed in her warmer Barbie pyjamas as it was a cold windy night when Madeleine vanished in her short sleeved Eyore ones, and would be cold?   Another load of guff to re-enforce the idea that the child was wearing eyore short sleeved pyjamas.  

Does she actually state that she packed the Barbie jimjams or that they had long sleeves for instance?

You see often Kate McCann spouts something and it is misleading. Speaking of Barbie pyjamas as she did might lead some to think there was a pair of Barbie jimjams available in Portugal.  Had there been, would be unusual for the stained ones to be once more put on the child, especially a cold night if she had a warmer pair!

She has taken the world for a ride!

And,  had any stain on the jimjams been blood as some suggest,  then the DOCTOR DUO surely would have been able to identify it as such?

Just as if it had been a tea stain they would also have been able to identify it?

And just as surely had it been anything other than the aforementioned, they would have been able to identify the stain by that process of elimination I spoke of earlier, and that is what a PARENT WOULD DO!

The pyjamas held up by the McCanns for the press conference?

We cannot say categorically that they were not the younger child's, they could well have been hand-me-downs!

On other hand Madeleine might have gotten a new outfit but no new jimjams for the vacation, just squeezed into an old pair that she had grown out of?

As to what Madeleine McCann was actually wearing when removed from that apartment, be it pyjamas or any other garment, the parents for sure know exactly what that would be.

Anyone's guess at to whether they have told the truth in this regard.

Anyone's guess as to whether there ever was two pairs of Marks and Spencer Eyore pyjamas packed for the vacation in Portugal, one for each female child.

What we do know for sure is that the McCanns produced ONE pair for the press, and claimed there had been TWO!   

Madeleine's pair MISSING, just like she is!   

And for sure that excerpt from Kate McCanns book is the biggest load of bullshit!

Was there ever a stain on any pyjama top?

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 book store, queuing for hours, happy to part with the £ in their pocket for their copy of Kate McCann's Pyjama Tales.  

  • 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!
12th March 2016
Website Builder