Recap on the Tennis Balls photo

There is probably no shadow, because there was no sun.
The sun only shone on Saturday (arrivals day)
Sunday, and then Friday onwards.

PeterMac wrote:There is probably no shadow, because there was no sun.
The sun only shone on Saturday (arrivals day)
Sunday, and then Friday onwards.

I thought there would have been an itsy bitsy shadow, although we don't even know if the photo was taken in Portugal, or if the child was superimposed on a tennis court, where the photographer seemed to be more interested in the colouring of the tennis court than the child.

If Madeleine's face was also superimposed on the photo of another child as people are posting that suggests that the photo wasn't taken in Portugal anyway.

ETA: Looking at the photo again it seems more obvious that a photo of a tennis court was taken, then the child was superimposed on to the tennis court, therefore there would be no shadow.

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

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


1. 'normal'
2. transform y axis
3. transform x axis

What is wrong here:
The head is set too far forwards, the 7th vertebra - the connection between the neck and the back is impossible, she'd have to be a hunchback for this pose to be true.
The length of the knee to the ankle bone (tibia) is more than the length of the femur, the hip to knee bone. The femur should be longer and from the angle this photograph is apparently taken (not just from the height of an adult standing on the side but from an elevation in order to take in as much of the tennis court as is visible in the uncropped photo) the lower leg should look a lot shorter. Instead it is clearly longer and that's why my reaction on seeing that photo for the first time was that she looked so 'lanky'. Not at all the compact little body and smooth arms of the pool girl.
But I think this is a composite of Maddy, it was first published iirc by Philomena to go as a 'chain email' round the world. (Surely chain emails are as illegal as chain letters?)
I think on the 8th.

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

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

This one is the right way round.

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

The  hands cannot be those of a child, the knuckles are very large and however hard she grips the balls, a child of four wouldn't have knuckles that size.
The hand underneath looks strange, a reddish tinge to the fingers as if there is a bruise.
The hand is not blended into the rest of the skin and Maddie's arms have miraculously lost all this sunburn in the pool photo. Allegedly taken a few hours later.

Plus the bottom tennis ball is all wrong. If you look closely you'll see lots of extra yellow underneath where the ball should logically end. For the extra yellow to be there, the ball would have to be larger than the other balls, or oblong in shape.

Here's a closeup to illustrate my point:

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

Possibly that is another ball partially obscured by the one in front?

I do agree that the arms don't look like those of a child. They remind me of that horrible photo with the lolly and ice cream.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Possibly that is another ball partially obscured by the one in front?

I do agree that the arms don't look like those of a child. They remind me of that horrible photo with the lolly and ice cream.  

I don't think there's room in there for a 4th ball, to be honest.

the ball is correct

it measures the same as the other ball

soundworks wrote:the ball is correct

it measures the same as the other ball

Yes you're right, my mistake. It is an optical illusion and in this case I'll admit I was wrong.

Have we got any explanation for the black vertical line between Madeleine's third and fourth fingers and the somewhat impossible hook and twist in her third finger above the top joint...?

canada12 wrote:Plus the bottom tennis ball is all wrong. If you look closely you'll see lots of extra yellow underneath where the ball should logically end. For the extra yellow to be there, the ball would have to be larger than the other balls, or oblong in shape.

Here's a closeup to illustrate my point:

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

  this is the same girl's hand ?

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

Difficult to see that they're the same hands, to be honest. The tennis ball left hand is much less chubby and more older-child or even adult looking. The right hand (underneath) looks cobbled together and strangely stretched.

Just for the sake of comparison, the usual diameter of a tennis ball is 6.7 cm (2.63 in.) according to Wikipedia.

If anyone wants to compare that to the average size of a nearly 4-year old's hands, that would be interesting.

Is this a photo of Madeleine picking up tennis balls at an adult tennis session or at a children's lesson? Do children learn with conventional tennis balls?

I was looking at the logo on the ball -does xxx mean they are seconds? Does anyone recognise the brand?

worriedmum wrote:Is this a photo of Madeleine picking up tennis balls at an adult tennis session or at a children's lesson? Do children learn with conventional tennis balls?

I was looking at the logo on the ball -does xxx mean they are seconds? Does anyone recognise the brand?

You are right, usually they use sponge balls. Conventional ball are fall too heavy.

If my memory serves me ,I am under impression some one said it was at adult match the photo of child with tennis balls in arms was taken,not the kiddies one  joyce1938

Going by KH1, (P.57),
'During Gerry's tennis lesson.........M & E came to adjoining court with their Mini Club for a mini-tennis session........'

'..........At the end of their session, the children had been asked to run around the court and pick up as many balls as they could.....'

So it was the kids balls, whatever they were.

Agree with those who think the photo is heavily photo-shopped. The angle of the head in relation to the back is most peculiar giving her a hunchback look. The mere fact that it was not produced until some time after they returned is weird.  Doubt it had anything to do with Portugal. Well, it does, but not the reason they would like us to think. 

Fascinating how many people would have witnessed this episode (or not as the case may be). I think it is supposed to have happened on the morning of Tuesday 1st May. (Which suggests to me something very different was happening on that day.)

Page 57 of the book: "During Gerry's tennis lesson, Madeleine and Ella came to the adjoining court with their Mini Club for a mini-tennis session. Jane and I stayed to watch. It chokes me remembering how my heart soared with pride in Madeleine that morning. She was so happy and obviously enjoying herself. Standing there listening intently to Cat's instructions, she looked so  gorgeous in her little T-shirt and shorts, pink hat, ankle stocks and new holiday sandals that I ran back to our apartment for my camera to record the occasion. One of my photographs is known around the world now: a smiling Madeleine clutching armfuls of tennis balls.  At the end of the session , the children had ben asked to run around the court and pick up as many balls as they could. Madeleine had done really well and was very pleased with herself. Gerry loves that picture. " (hmmm...)

Apart from anything else, surely the children would all be advised to wear trainers? I remember my children were not allowed to take part in sports activities if they did not have the right footwear as it was a health and safety requirement. Playing tennis in sandals is a bad idea, even for a four year old. 

This alone demonstrates to me the level of 'care' that the McCann's are prepared to put into Madeleine's welfare. The sandals look awful - cheap and nasty with a velcro attachment. Completely unsuitable for running around on a tennis court. 

Also, as others have pointed out, mini tennis for children of that age is usually played with a different type of ball. A sponge ball. This would be so easy to verify. 


There would be potentially loads of witnesses to this event. Whoever else was playing tennis with Gerry (especially if it was a group session). Gerry's tennis instructor. Ella and whatever other children were in the mini-tennis session that day. The nanny Cat (although I have read elsewhere the children's tennis instructor was called Georgina) plus any other members of staff (there would presumably have been at least two members of staff depending on how many children were in group that day). Plus any other parents who were watching or just happened to be nearby?

Given the very peculiar incident that Kate describes in her book relating to the video-recording of a guest's three year old daughter on Thursday at a mini tennis session. And given that I am pretty sure that Kate has spun this incident to give it an innocent explanation, I am wondering if the McCircus attempt to film a three year old girl playing mini-tennis was thwarted on Thursday. Hence Gerry was obliged to cobble together such an image when he returned to the UK.

I think you might have something there, j.rob. I agree with you about the footwear. If a child is wearing sandals that means feet can slip and there's basically no support, so the potential for tripping or just falling over if there's a lot of running about is there. There must be rules about liability if children are on a tennis court with incorrect footwear?

It's an interesting thought that perhaps Kate and Gerry and co. were trying to get video or a photo of a little girl - any little girl - on the tennis courts. It wouldn't matter what the little girl looked like because Madeleine's head could easily be photoshopped in.

J.Rob: I don't think that you are correct in saying that this photo was not produced until later - that was the poolside photo.

There is information somewhere here about the date of issue of the various photos; I hope to find it and post a link.

I am confident though that it was published with a week of 3rd May.

I hope some-one who plays tennis can advise here. Can anyone distinguish the brand of tennis ball? It would establish if the photo has been flipped and possibly whether they are English tennis balls?


Has the photo been 'flipped'? I think it has appeared facing the other way too. If the photo has been flipped then you would expect Madeleine's visible arm on the 'last photo' to show the  'sunburn' as it was taken afterwards.It doesn't.

worriedmum wrote:I hope some-one who plays tennis can advise here. Can anyone distinguish the brand of tennis ball? It would establish if the photo has been flipped and possibly whether they are English tennis balls?


Has the photo been 'flipped'? I think it has appeared facing the other way too. If the photo has been flipped then you would expect Madeleine's visible arm on the 'last photo' to show the  'sunburn' as it was taken afterwards.It doesn't.

I'm trying to find a photo of yellow tennis balls that have that kind of writing on them, in order to have some kind of starting point for trying to "read" the writing. All of the photos I can find are too low-res to make out the writing, so it's almost impossible to check to see if the picture has been flipped. So I was looking for patterns and brand names. If anyone has the time to do this or knows what brand tennis ball it is, that would be great!

I had just assumed that photo appeared at the same time as 'the last photos'. It must be quite easy to verify whether the mini tennis session that Madeleine and Ella are supposed to have participated in used that type of tennis ball.

And I still think it is odd that she is wearing sandals. I am sure the staff would have specified that appropriate footwear was required, so even if Madeleine did participate, this would have made her stand out.

Talking of photos, there was much discussion on another thread, now closed, about the Wendy House photo. It is, indeed, a strange photo. I think it is supposed to demonstrate that Gerry spent time on that holiday playing with his children (as well as presumably placing him and the children in a certain place at a certain time) But, as is nearly always the case with his photos, it does not achieve its objective. 
Gerry is neither making eye contact with Madeleine nor really engaging with her or any of the children. 

The dark haired child does not look like one of his. So whose child is this?

And the man standing behind the Wendy House who,  one presumes, is accompanying a child playing nearby (otherwise surely he wouldn't be hanging around in the vicinity of the children's play area). His expression is noteworthy. 

In the context of what was being alleged at the time the photo was published, one might be inclined to look at him and think: 'ah, a man hanging around the children's play area but not seemingly playing with a child - maybe he could have been the abductor.'

But, presumably this man was identified and ruled out as having any involvement. In which case, was that ever made clear?

Looking at the photo through a different lens, you could reach a different conclusion. He is actually the only person who is having any proper engagement with anyone else (apart from possibly the brown haired child who could be looking at Gerry as if to say - 'who the heck are you and what do you want?' He is quite distinctively looking at the person who is taking the photo. And, while initially I had mistaken his expression for furtiveness, I actually think it is displeasure.

So could he, too, be looking at whoever is taking the photo and thinking: 'who the heck are you and what are you doing'.

Especially if you consider that his own children might have ended up included in the photo?! 

Just an idea. The McCircus had already aroused the suspicions of Nigel from Southampton with their choice of video-recording. So perhaps this was another person who found their behaviour strange. 

It is also interesting that the McCann's allowed the photo to circulate with the face of an (apparently) completely innocent man staring into the camera. I wouldn't want to be included in any of their 'family snaps'.

I wonder who he is?

Just quickly answering the one thing I do know - the dark-haired girl is the elder Payne daughter, the same one climbing the plane steps with Madeleine and sitting next to her on the bus.

The man behind the house was identified as one of the other holidaymakers that I believe the McCanns knew. What's peculiar about him is his feet. If you look closely he's facing one direction and his feet and legs are facing another direction in an impossible position, even if he were an extremely agile ballet dancer or acrobat.

I can't remember his name off the top of my head.

The other interesting things about this photo are:

1. If you stand "Madeleine" up straight she'd be much taller than your average 3-4 year old
2. "Madeleine" has two left feet
3. The shadows are all very peculiar

For me, this is a primary example of a manipulated photo with elements that have been added to make a composite. IMO.

canada12 wrote:The man behind the house was identified as one of the other holidaymakers that I believe the McCanns knew. What's peculiar about him is his feet. If you look closely he's facing one direction and his feet and legs are facing another direction in an impossible position, even if he were an extremely agile ballet dancer or acrobat.

I can't remember his name off the top of my head.

The other interesting things about this photo are:

1. If you stand "Madeleine" up straight she'd be much taller than your average 3-4 year old
2. "Madeleine" has two left feet
3. The shadows are all very peculiar

For me, this is a primary example of a manipulated photo with elements that have been added to make a composite. IMO.

Yes - your very correct with your observations. Not noticed it before..

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

Mr Mc Cann
If you follow this forum, as we suppose you do, what happened to the little girl in front of you in this picture?

worriedmum wrote:I hope some-one who plays tennis can advise here. Can anyone distinguish the brand of tennis ball? It would establish if the photo has been flipped and possibly whether they are English tennis balls?


Has the photo been 'flipped'? I think it has appeared facing the other way too. If the photo has been flipped then you would expect Madeleine's visible arm on the 'last photo' to show the  'sunburn' as it was taken afterwards.It doesn't.

long time ago i did play some recreational tennis, but just for some months.

but as far that i can make it out the print looks red to me, this is what i could find of tennis balls with double line text and in red:

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

those look the same, but maybe a bit more useful for somebody who is a master in photoshop:

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

i'am not certain if it is the right one, but the one upside down in the large pack from the second link could be the one, but the resolution from the madeleine at tennis is very low.

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


Not convinced they are exactly the same ones. However the closest resemblance i can see so far. Thanks onehand.

onehand wrote:

worriedmum wrote:I hope some-one who plays tennis can advise here. Can anyone distinguish the brand of tennis ball? It would establish if the photo has been flipped and possibly whether they are English tennis balls?


Has the photo been 'flipped'? I think it has appeared facing the other way too. If the photo has been flipped then you would expect Madeleine's visible arm on the 'last photo' to show the  'sunburn' as it was taken afterwards.It doesn't.

long time ago i did play some recreational tennis, but just for some months.

but as far that i can make it out the print looks red to me, this is what i could find of tennis balls with double line text and in red:

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

those look the same, but maybe a bit more useful for somebody who is a master in photoshop:

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

i'am not certain if it is the right one, but the one upside down in the large pack from the second link could be the one, but the resolution from the madeleine at tennis is very low.

You might be onto something here.

Here are the tennis balls without Amazon:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
or these?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Here's the best resolution I can find for Madeleine holding the balls:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I was going to say something similar but you beat me to it, Andrew77R!

The man behind the Wendy House in the playground photo in my opinion bears quite a resemblance to Revd Lars F Nowen the Snr Chaplain at St Vincent's Anglican Church - Haynes Hubbard's successor. Check out [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and go to the people section. There is a picture of him full length in casual clothes on the website if you search for 30 hr famine which gives a better comparison.

Sparklehorse wrote:The man behind the Wendy House in the playground photo  in my opinion bears quite a resemblance to Revd Lars F Nowen the Snr Chaplain at St Vincent's Anglican Church - Haynes Hubbard's successor. Check out  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and go to the people section. There is a picture of him full length in casual clothes on the website if you search for 30 hr famine which gives a better comparison.

wAS IT THIS ONE?

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