Re: When was the 'Tennis Balls' pic taken?

by **HiDeHo** 27.03.16 22:13

Although I agree there is a possibility of it being taken at Rothley, I tend to go along with what the details 'tell' me and it 'fits' that John Corner sent the ones from prior to the holiday and Alex Woolfall sent the tennis balls on Saturday.

Anything is possible, but it's important to me to not grab a theory and see if it fits... I prefer to go with what we 'know' exists, unless the files tell me something is not as it should be.

eg. The files tell me that discrepancies started happening on Tuesday and I see no proof of Maddie being around after Sunday...

The FILES lead me to a conclusion that something may have happened before Tuesday, hence the discrepancies were attempts to cover up and after Sunday when she was seen.

Therefore its possible something happened between Sunday lunchtime and Tuesday morning. A conclusion based on logic from the FILES... NOT because I guessed on a scenario and made it fit.

by Guest 27.03.16 22:56

HiDeHo wrote:I agree with you Verdi that the photo was taken on the holiday and not at Rothley where the weather and scenario would be unlikely.

Alex Woolfall supposedly downloaded from Kates camera and sent the tennis balls pic to the press on May 5th , however, as you know, the Last Pic was not released for another 19 days after Gerry's return from UK

Some of the other pics not included in the graphic above...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think that's where the answer lies (excuse the pun). The PJ are anxious for the most recent photograph of Madeleine for identification which is, ostensibly, readily available in the form of the playground picture the poolside picture and the tennis court picture - what better! All they needed to do was hand over their cameras (the McCanns and their mates) to the PJ and let them do the graft but did they do that simple stress free thing? No - they fanny about selectively sifting through various camera memory cards and in the interim issue an outdated image of Madeleine for identification - to assist with the investigation into a missing three year old child?

The most useful images of Madeleine to be later published for PR whilst the official police investigation is reliant on some antiquated image of the lost child? What of all the other photographs recorded on the groups cameras? Why are these three selected PR images the only available from a period of six days holiday? I think the more discerning observer will instantly comprehend the reason why - problem is proving it. Bell Pottinger, a bit like that PR bloke more recently jailed errr.... Max Clifford, that's the name, care not who or why they represent just as long as the price is right - bit like lawyers!

Sorry to go off track but it makes me furious.

by Guest 27.03.16 23:08

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] D wrote: Who knows for sure? Places in UK in April were a lot warmer than Faro on Monday & Tuesday based on the charts above.

Be that as it may, as I say people tend to behave differently when on holiday - more likely to strip off even if the weather is not particularly great. No doubt I'm still living in Bedrock but somehow craving the St Tropez dream in down-town Rothley prior to late April just doesn't do it for me. You'd be lucky to find me in the garden sans string vest and braces mid-July let alone April.

If I was big and brave and aferletic like what Gerry is, then I might stretch to shorts and sports shirt on the tennis court but I don't think I'd take a three year old child along for the ride.

by Doug D 27.03.16 23:13

A full copy of The Times article dated 6^th October 2007 where Alex Woolfall supposedly lays claim to downloading the ‘tennis photo’ can be found at:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

without having to go through a subscription service.

snipped:

‘The McCanns had photographs of Madeleine on their digital camera, which Mr Woolfall began transferring to a laptop computer. “I said to Kate, ‘Let’s try to identify pictures where her face is visible’. Downloading the images was a very difficult process for them. It was upsetting.
“They were trying to do two things at once: one, emotionally deal with what was actually, really happening to them; two, operate in some sort of logical way to help get her back.”
Mr Woolfall transmitted the photographs to the Press Association in London, from where they were distributed to the media. The portfolio included the now famous image of Madeleine wearing a hat on a tennis court.’

HdH,

We know that the PA laid claim to the photo at an early stage, but have no real evidence as to where they received this photo from, other than the above report.

If we are happy to accept this account regarding Alex Woolfall as definitive, why are we questioning whether Jane may have taken the photo?

The files tell us that something is not right about this photo, with Rachel categorically contradicting KM and Russell waffling away as he did all along, so why should we offer any more credence to Woolfall’s claims, which cannot be correct if Rachel’s statement is truthful.

Without some new evidence coming to light, I don’t think we will ever get to an undisputed truth behind this photo.

by **HiDeHo** 27.03.16 23:31

Doug D wrote:A full copy of The Times article dated 6^th October 2007 where Alex Woolfall supposedly lays claim to downloading the ‘tennis photo’ can be found at:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

without having to go through a subscription service.

snipped:

‘The McCanns had photographs of Madeleine on their digital camera, which Mr Woolfall began transferring to a laptop computer. “I said to Kate, ‘Let’s try to identify pictures where her face is visible’. Downloading the images was a very difficult process for them. It was upsetting.
“They were trying to do two things at once: one, emotionally deal with what was actually, really happening to them; two, operate in some sort of logical way to help get her back.”
Mr Woolfall transmitted the photographs to the Press Association in London, from where they were distributed to the media. The portfolio included the now famous image of Madeleine wearing a hat on a tennis court.’

HdH,

We know that the PA laid claim to the photo at an early stage, but have no real evidence as to where they received this photo from, other than the above report.

If we are happy to accept this account regarding Alex Woolfall as definitive, why are we questioning whether Jane may have taken the photo?

The files tell us that something is not right about this photo, with Rachel categorically contradicting KM and Russell waffling away as he did all along, so why should we offer any more credence to Woolfall’s claims, which cannot be correct if Rachel’s statement is truthful.

Without some new evidence coming to light, I don’t think we will ever get to an undisputed truth behind this photo.

Doug, I don't think we can take any of Rachaels claim as credible. Even the police questioned her on which tennis court the children played and she didnt get that correct.

She claims it was Thursday (when the other group played) and if that is the case then it seems she may have been merely placing Maddie alive on Thursday.

She also claims it is the last time she saw Maddie (at mini tennis) so with her getting the wrong day, presumably, then are we to believe the last day she saw Maddie alive was Tuesday?

If she WAS at mini tennis and saw Jane take the picture then the rest of her statement falls short of being credible.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Tony Bennett** 28.03.16 9:27

Elça Craig wrote:
There appears to be EXIF for the Last Photo giving date/time. Presumably there is no EXIF for the Tennis Balls photo? Or is it that no one has run the Tennis Balls photo through the EXIF extractor app?

Someone has indeed put the 'Tennis Balls Photo' through a 'software program' - see at 1 min 07 seconds on this short video:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The (foreign) lady who uploaded this photo makes the claim that the photo was taken on Saturday 5 May 2007, but my understanding is that the data she presents refer only to the creation of an adaptation of this photo on Saturday 5 May, when it was being processed by the press agency.

Not being a 'tecchie', I simply have no idea what these data mean

by **Nina** 28.03.16 11:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
Elça Craig wrote:
There appears to be EXIF for the Last Photo giving date/time. Presumably there is no EXIF for the Tennis Balls photo? Or is it that no one has run the Tennis Balls photo through the EXIF extractor app?
Someone has indeed put the 'Tennis Balls Photo' through a 'software program' - see at 1 min 07 seconds on this short video:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The (foreign) lady who uploaded this photo makes the claim that the photo was taken on Saturday 5 May 2007, but my understanding is that the data she presents refer only to the creation of an adaptation of this photo on Saturday 5 May, when it was being processed by the press agency.

Not being a 'tecchie', I simply have no idea what these data mean

Could it be a photo of a photo that was taken on the 5th?

by Guest 28.03.16 12:28

Tony Bennett wrote:
Elça Craig wrote:
There appears to be EXIF for the Last Photo giving date/time. Presumably there is no EXIF for the Tennis Balls photo? Or is it that no one has run the Tennis Balls photo through the EXIF extractor app?
Someone has indeed put the 'Tennis Balls Photo' through a 'software program' - see at 1 min 07 seconds on this short video:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The (foreign) lady who uploaded this photo makes the claim that the photo was taken on Saturday 5 May 2007, but my understanding is that the data she presents refer only to the creation of an adaptation of this photo on Saturday 5 May, when it was being processed by the press agency.

Not being a 'tecchie', I simply have no idea what these data mean

Thank you for the video.

This photo is a cropped and brightened version of the larger Tennis Balls photo, and if the lady has used EXIF extraction, it would tell us when the smaller photo was created and, I believe, the software used in editing it. A creation date of 5 May simply means 5 May was when this was cropped/edited/saved, not when the original larger and darker photo was taken.

I suppose I need to get the EXIF app and see what it does with the larger photo. The type of Kate's camera is known. Is the type of Jane Tanner's camera known (assuming I have got it right that Jane may be the taker of the photo)? That way we might be able to sort out who took the photo.

by JRP 28.03.16 12:36

The exif file in the video shows a Photoshop version having been created. It's not the exif from the original camera image.
A camera exif would show. Camera make and model. Exposure used Aperture and shutter speed etc... also the date and time the shutter was pressed.

So the video unfortunately makes an incorrect presumption.

by Guest 28.03.16 15:21

Was just mulling over this thread again and realised there actually are photos of the tennis courts in the files, the only problem being that they were 'burned' and made greyscale by the PJ on releasing them (this is my belief - I know others like Richard Hall have claimed the PJ received the photos in this manner).

What this at a minimum means is that the PJ would've been able to corroborate whether or not it were the same court (which I think is likely due to the perspective), and also get a handle on how the surface looked. There are several angles, and with these photos presumably being taken on the first couple of days, the answer to this question is very likely in the files.

I've gone with the presumption that the photos were released as they were because of privacy issues, or similar reasons - however, I do wonder whether it'd be possible to ask the PJ for colour copies, faces blurred if necessary? Has anyone tried this? I know they value freedom of information there, but not sure how far that extends with this kind of minutia.

by joyce1938 28.03.16 15:24

I think that there were a group of those grey grainy pics around at some time. Does anyone else recall? joyce1938

by Guest 28.03.16 15:27

Yes, there are several like this:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Just wondering if there is any way of obtaining them in colour, as they'd possibly clear this up pretty quickly.

You can find them [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], there are several and given that the photo was likely taken on the left court (nearest the tapas) we have almost exactly the same perspective as the Tennis photo in question. Aspects like the 'skid mark' to her left would be easy identifiers.

In fact, you could probably deduce a lot about how different the 'Tennis photo' is from the other tennis photos here, but that's another thread!

by Guest 28.03.16 23:43

Looking for the link to the black/white and grayscale photograph copies included in the PJ files, reminded me of something I recently noticed when checking out the tennis ball photograph..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The top two images are easily recognizable as a creeper straggling a wall (no, not Gerry) as seen around the pool area but regard the lower image that could be KM playing with one or both the twins. The size of the court with the child in the foreground and the comparative proportions of the adult. appears to be more in-keeping with a mini tennis court than the huge court with little Madeleine standing without clutching tennis balls. Not that I think the Ocean Club courts to be particularly large, which brings me to the main point.

The trees at the back of the court appear to be some sort of Cyprus conifer, whereas all the tennis court photographs I recall seeing posted on the forum, show either palm trees or jacaranda. Could of course be somewhere totally unconnected with their trip to PdL but they are listed in the PJ files as the groups holiday photographs and the image of the child again looks like one of the twins wearing the communal jumper/cardigan.

I'm probably going off with the fairies here but the comparison seemed rather odd as does the reason this photograph hasn't been published as part of the McCann portfolio.

by Guest 28.03.16 23:52

joyce1938 wrote:I think that there were a group of those grey grainy pics around at some time. Does anyone else recall? joyce1938

Is this what you're referring to - more or less?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by joyce1938 29.03.16 0:01

Yes verdi,,but arent they awfull?Dont think could be of much use in that form,were they converted to colour ,or even from colour ? joyce1938

by canada12 29.03.16 0:15

Verdi wrote:Looking for the link to the black/white and grayscale photograph copies included in the PJ files, reminded me of something I recently noticed when checking out the tennis ball photograph..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The top two images are easily recognizable as a creeper straggling a wall (no, not Gerry) as seen around the pool area but regard the lower image that could be KM playing with one or both the twins. The size of the court with the child in the foreground and the comparative proportions of the adult. appears to be more in-keeping with a mini tennis court than the huge court with little Madeleine standing without clutching tennis balls. Not that I think the Ocean Club courts to be particularly large, which brings me to the main point.

The trees at the back of the court appear to be some sort of Cyprus conifer, whereas all the tennis court photographs I recall seeing posted on the forum, show either palm trees or jacaranda. Could of course be somewhere totally unconnected with their trip to PdL but they are listed in the PJ files as the groups holiday photographs and the image of the child again looks like one of the twins wearing the communal jumper/cardigan.

I'm probably going off with the fairies here but the comparison seemed rather odd as does the reason this photograph hasn't been published as part of the McCann portfolio.

I think the perspective might be a bit off, but I also think what we are looking at is actually one of the PDL tennis courts. Here's an aerial view of the complex...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You can see the bottom end of the tennis courts does have a single row of trees.

However if that's Kate, she appears to be standing behind a slide - with her foot resting on the ladder. I wonder if we can find the same sort of slide in photos of the playground equipment on the grass in front of the tennis courts at PDL.

by Guest 29.03.16 0:19

joyce1938 wrote:Yes verdi,,but arent they awfull?Dont think could be of much use in that form,were they converted to colour ,or even from colour ? joyce1938

I don't think that's ever been verified. It seems rather strange to me that the PJ would include these black/white and gray-scale images in the files released into the public arena; if privacy was the intention then why publish the images at all? As you say, for the most part they are indistinguishable, thus of little use.

If I have a spare moment at some juncture I'll have a poke about and see if I can find some clarification as to the origin - or in what form the PJ first received the images. If some kind soul out there already has the information please save me the effort smilie

!

by Guest 29.03.16 0:22

canada12 wrote:
Verdi wrote:Looking for the link to the black/white and grayscale photograph copies included in the PJ files, reminded me of something I recently noticed when checking out the tennis ball photograph..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The top two images are easily recognizable as a creeper straggling a wall (no, not Gerry) as seen around the pool area but regard the lower image that could be KM playing with one or both the twins. The size of the court with the child in the foreground and the comparative proportions of the adult. appears to be more in-keeping with a mini tennis court than the huge court with little Madeleine standing without clutching tennis balls. Not that I think the Ocean Club courts to be particularly large, which brings me to the main point.

The trees at the back of the court appear to be some sort of Cyprus conifer, whereas all the tennis court photographs I recall seeing posted on the forum, show either palm trees or jacaranda. Could of course be somewhere totally unconnected with their trip to PdL but they are listed in the PJ files as the groups holiday photographs and the image of the child again looks like one of the twins wearing the communal jumper/cardigan.

I'm probably going off with the fairies here but the comparison seemed rather odd as does the reason this photograph hasn't been published as part of the McCann portfolio.

I think the perspective might be a bit off, but I also think what we are looking at is actually one of the PDL tennis courts. Here's an aerial view of the complex...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You can see the bottom end of the tennis courts does have a single row of trees.

However if that's Kate, she appears to be standing behind a slide - with her foot resting on the ladder. I wonder if we can find the same sort of slide in photos of the playground equipment on the grass in front of the tennis courts at PDL.

I stand corrected yes

! Thank you, I've never seen the courts from a birds eye view before now, the conifers can clearly be seen.

Please disregard my post - it's a load of old rubbish.

by canada12 29.03.16 0:26

Verdi wrote:
I stand corrected [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] ! Thank you, I've never seen the courts from a birds eye view before now, the conifers can clearly be seen.

Please disregard my post - it's a load of old rubbish.

On the contrary - you drew my attention to a picture I'd never actually seen before and I found it quite interesting!

thumbup

by Guest 29.03.16 11:55

Found this which looks to be a slide up the back between the playhouse and small tree - that would fit in nicely with what you say..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
.. also puts the true size of the tennis courts in to perspective.

Another image of the area which clearly shows the conifers at the far end of the court..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

.. and I'm clearly not as observant as I thought big grin

.

by NickE 29.03.16 12:46

HiDeHo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Was it Kate or was it Jane that took the pic?

Tennis records say Tuesday was Lobsters mini tennis

Jane said it was Wednesday

Rachael claims it was Thursday.

Regardless of the day... WAS THE COURT WET?

If so, then WHEN did it get wet? There was no rain overnight or Tuesday morning before the mini tennis.

Tennis booking forms show it was cleaned midday Tuesday AFTER the mini tennis at 10 (Court 1 and possibly court 2) No records for Sunday or Monday.

If the court was wet then how could it have become wet before mini tennis OR was the photo taken at another time?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If this pic was taken in pdl I think it was taken early/mid morning (~9:00?) because the light from the sun hit her in her back,you can on the back of her knee.

by joyce1938 29.03.16 13:00

I don't don't know much about shadows but as there is hardly any, I wonder if it was taken more towards 12ish when shadow may not have been there? joyce1938

by **HiDeHo** 29.03.16 13:33

NickE wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
If this pic was taken in pdl I think it was taken early/mid morning (~9:00?) because the light from the sun hit her in her back,you can on the back of her knee.

Google Imagery is taken with North at top

This is an overhead view showing EAST meaning sun would have been behind in morning (April/May possibly a little more SE)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

(Please note: This photo was originally used for last photo explanation of shadows)

by NickE 29.03.16 13:44

HiDeHo wrote:
NickE wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
If this pic was taken in pdl I think it was taken early/mid morning (~9:00?) because the light from the sun hit her in her back,you can on the back of her knee.

Google Imagery is taken with North at top

This is an overhead view showing EAST meaning sun would have been behind in morning (April/May possibly a little more SE)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

(Please note: This photo was originally used for last photo explanation of shadows)

Thank´s.
East/South East was what I also came up with.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Official Witness Questioning
Date of activity: 2007/05/08 Hour: 18H30 Locale: Praia da Luz
Executing Official: Maria Jos? Ratnos, Inspectora
Name: DANIEL JAMES STUK
Birthplace: Grimsby - N.E Lincolnshire Country : UK
Nationality: British Date of birth: 1978/**/**
Residence: Praia da Luz
Post Code: Telephone:
Marital status: Profession: Tennis instructor

"Asked, he relates that he usually works from 09:00 to 19:30 and has his day-off on Saturday.

He reports that the group iniciated contact with the tennis instructors on the 29 April, the day immediately after their arrival at the Ocean Club.
His colleague Georgina has the calendar of classes given by her and by him to the McCann couple.
He relates that a first lesson of instruction was done in the morning of 29 April, it being that, on that day, they had no more lessons".
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

On Sunday, Madeleine was signed in 9:45

With the sun in south/east means that there is a possibility that this photo could have been taken on Sunday morning/mid morning before creche!?

by willowthewisp 29.03.16 16:12

Hi Nicke, Ocean Club did not offer a "Creche Service" on a Sunday?

by NickE 29.03.16 16:41

willowthewisp wrote:Hi Nicke, Ocean Club did not offer a "Creche Service" on a Sunday?

Hmm is McCannfiles wrong about this?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Carrry On Doctor 29.03.16 17:33

I may be missing something here, but is it possible that the tennis ball photo was taken with MBM standing on the south edge of the tennis court (not the north edge as discussed above), and therefore it would be an evening sun shining from the north/west. This could explain MBM's shorts appearing dirty (she had been playing that day) and perhaps some sunburn/redness on the skin ?

It doesn't however explain a damp court (if it was taken in PdL at all) if the weather was sunny that day.

by Doug D 29.03.16 17:51

Carry On Doctor:

‘is it possible that the tennis ball photo was taken with MBM standing on the south edge of the tennis court’

I think the assumption is that to be high enough up to get the angle for the photo you need to be standing on the elevated play area, taking the photo over the top of the fence.

At the other end you would need to be on the steps of the other apartments, (or climbing a tree!) to get the necessary elevation and not being close up to the fence it would add blurring to the photo.

Maybe a mathematician could work out the angles and the approximate height needed to get the photo to ‘prove’ this.

by skyrocket 29.03.16 18:50

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I am assuming that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has read the strange comment made (almost verbatim) by nannys Shinead (toddlers 2 - Sean and Amelie); Leanne (toddlers 1); and Amy Tierney (who was actual in charge of both the baby club and the mini club), in their statments to the PJ:

'The hours of the club are from 09.00 to 12.30 and from 14.30 to 17.30, the club is closed on Sundays on that day it only offers the dinner service.'

I have no explanation as to why 3 of the nannys would clearly state this in a police interview. Other nannys are unspecific and several state that the creche was only closed on change over day (Saturday). Very odd.

by NickE 29.03.16 19:25

skyrocket wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I am assuming that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has read the strange comment made (almost verbatim) by nannys Shinead (toddlers 2 - Sean and Amelie); Leanne (toddlers 1); and Amy Tierney (who was actual in charge of both the baby club and the mini club), in their statments to the PJ:

'The hours of the club are from 09.00 to 12.30 and from 14.30 to 17.30, the club is closed on Sundays on that day it only offers the dinner service.'

I have no explanation as to why 3 of the nannys would clearly state this in a police interview. Other nannys are unspecific and several state that the creche was only closed on change over day (Saturday). Very odd.

Thank you.
It´s very odd but not crucial for my theory about the "tennisball" photo because they contacted the tennis instructors on Sunday morning and I think that while Gerry? was talking to Daniel and Georgina about the tennis lessons at, or just before 9 o'clock when the instructors began Madeleine was playing around on the empty tennis court and Kate? took the photo,and the timeline fits with the weak sunlight threw a hazy seaside morning from south-east.
IMO