It's highly unlikely that the colour pink would show up under a sodium street light.

[mercury]

Poor mr redwood ey?

[Robittybob1]

Where is it?
In my post and in your quote of it

 &%+((£

So it is the summary of all the statements or what someone thinks is a reasonable summary of all the statements.
I think it is "what someone thinks is a reasonable summary of all the statements" otherwise there would be ranges of times.

[Alice Purjorick]

Decades ago I lived in a street lit by sodium lights and and when it was dark and lit only by them, you couldn't tell the true colour of anything.

That's because low pressure sodium vapour lights only give off monochromatic yellow light and has the worst colour rendering of any lamp....
HP jobs give off a wider spectrum but the discrimination remains poor.
It is "Zee lows of pheesicks" apparently, but as we all know they do not apply in this topsy turvy of all worlds..... &%+((£

[jassi]

That's because low pressure sodium vapour lights only give off monochromatic yellow light and has the worst colour rendering of any lamp....
HP jobs give off a wider spectrum but the discrimination remains poor.
It is "Zee lows of pheesicks" apparently, but as we all know they do not apply in this topsy turvy of all worlds..... &%+((£

As we know, different laws apply in Portugal   

[G-Unit]

As we know, different laws apply in Portugal   

There are also people in other countries whose eyes can defy the laws also, apparently.

[Brietta]

(**) About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

Jane Tanner ...

• could only see the legs of the child being carried
• the child was barefoot
• the pyjamas were light in colour ... possibly white ... possibly light pink
• Jane was not certain but had an impression of a pattern on the pyjamas

The description Jane gave of the colour of the man's trousers is explained here by Heri ...
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html ... where he describes in detail why it is his opinion that the trousers she saw were white.

It is a fallacy to state that there is no understanding of the laws of physics.

However much manufactured argument there may be about the colour of the child's pyjamas, there is no dispute that the man was carrying a barefoot child.

The fact that short time later a child was found to be missing from her bed a few yards away should probably have excited the interest of the law enforcement personnel who were informed of that fact.

As far as I am concerned the focus of interest is the child ... not her pyjamas.

[jassi]

I'm puzzled as to how Jane could decide that she (the child) was sleeping when she only saw her legs.

[mercury]

So it is the summary of all the statements or what someone thinks is a reasonable summary of all the statements.
I think it is "what someone thinks is a reasonable summary of all the statements" otherwise there would be ranges of times.

Err, no, its nothing to do with police statements given,  it is a combined summary penned by the tapas 9 group themselves  (control risks?) issued to police 10 may
....
Which leaves the question unanswered, why was tanner said to have seen a top in pink whch contradicts all her other statements

[Brietta]

I'm puzzled as to how Jane could decide that she (the child) was sleeping when she only saw her legs.

Now I would be highly suspicious of anything that struck me as being unusual about a man carrying a child as Jane witnessed.

Back then, I would probably have thought what she did. 

If the child had been carried in an upright position and looking around = awake.
If lying in the arms in a relaxed position = asleep.

In the former position there was a chance the pyjama top could have been described even if the colour might have been altered by the light.

In the latter, the top would have been invisible (remember, Jane was approaching in an uphill direction) and the sighting would have been as described.

What do you think?

[Brietta]

Err, no, its nothing to do with police statements given,  it is a combined summary penned by the tapas 9 group themselves issued to police 10 may
....
Which leaves the question unanswered, why was tanner said to have seen a top in pink whch contradicts all her other statements

If memory serves me well ... Jane was unable to describe the top to the artist compiling the efit drawing and the artist added a pink smudge in representation.
I believe she wasn't content with the depiction of the trousers either ... but I don't think the child was the issue, the artist was making a representation of the man.

Find the man ... find out who the child was and what had become of her.

[jassi]

I think its rubbish. She said she only saw her legs.  In the dark For only a few seconds.

[mercury]

If memory serves me well ... Jane was unable to describe the top to the artist compiling the efit drawing and the artist added a pink smudge in representation.
I believe she wasn't content with the depiction of the trousers either ... but I don't think the child was the issue, the artist was making a representation of the man.

Find the man ... find out who the child was and what had become of her.

Who mentioned any artist?

The topic of discussion was the joint tapas group statement of 10 may prepared for delivery to police in whch it was typed that jane saw the top, possibly pink, which contradicts her other given statements...where she says she only saw a pair of legs!!

http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/tapastimeline3.jpg&target=tlx_picyl09

[Robittybob1]

Err, no, its nothing to do with police statements given,  it is a combined summary penned by the tapas 9 group themselves  (control risks?) issued to police 10 may
....
Which leaves the question unanswered, why was tanner said to have seen a top in pink whch contradicts all her other statements

When you put that post up yesterday you didn't give me the source, so don't growl at me.  You didn't tell me the background of the document.  If it was "issued to police 10 may" Jane may have remembered something after this date?  Jane is the spouse of Russell.  Are you leading us on to look at Russell?

[mercury]

When you put that post up yesterday you didn't give me the source, so don't growl at me.  You didn't tell me the background of the document.  If it was "issued to police 10 may" Jane may have remembered something after this date?  Jane is the spouse of Russell.  Are you leading us on to look at Russell?

No, jane didnt remember somethng after, as she went onto the programme panorama 7 months later and repeated she only saw legs...she has never said she saw a top, never, so why that is in there is a mystery

No, I am not leading you to look at Russell or anythng else apart from what I typed

[Carana]

I went to double-check again with a pink cloth placed under an orangey street light at what I would describe as just prior to night: I could still distinguish a difference between the sky and buildings in the absence of artificial light, however one chooses to describe that.

I had wondered if my perception of colour could have been different based on what I'd found to be a pink plastic or paper wrapper the following day on a previous occasion.

Nope. The pink cloth thing was still definitely pink to my eyes under this orangey old street light.

That said, I have no idea what type of lights these actually are, aside from the fact they are most definitely not recent and that they give off an orangey light. I also know that a different type of light makes red appear black to me and therefore invisible to me in total darkness, so I am aware of that.