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

by **HiDeHo** 29.03.16 20:13

Thanks so much everyone for such great posts It's interesting to see so many details and explanations.

So far I haven't seen any positive proof that the court IS wet and how it got that way. I'm waiting on some information regarding that and whether the dew in the morning could have produced that effect.

Surely though, if it did get wet from any source, wouldn't it be dangerous to play on?

Ultimately, I just want to remind you that if the court WAS wet and could NOT have looked like that on Tuesday morning at 10am then Kate's claim that she took the photo during Maddie's mini tennis could be classified as a LIE.

Then there is the question WHY would she lie?

Was it to place Maddie 'alive' on Tuesday?

If Maddie WASN'T alive on Tuesday then all their statements contain lies.

Wouldn't that be considered a criminal offence?

--------------------------------------------------------
OFF TOPIC but inspired by NickE's signature on the forum... I created a graphic smilie

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

by Guest 29.03.16 21:04

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

Do you know the progeny of this particular cropped photo? Reason I ask - the original photo is much bigger, and covers the area where Madeleine would've been standing on the right:

Here

The photo is credited to Frederico D Carvalho, and has a rather odd quality. This is (as far as I know) the only photo that's public, where you can actually see where Madeleine would've been standing, taken contemporarily, from an angle where the surface could be observed. Only, it takes just one look to notice that [i]the entire area has been blurred[/img]. This is a professional so I highly doubt he took and published a bad photo - but at some point between the click of the photo and its publication, someone selectively blurred that area.

Why?

At this point I do ask myself whether I am chasing rainbows looking so closely at that photo, but I can't shake how odd it is.

ETA - because the picture was too large, when I uploaded it with [img] brackets the forum actually chopped it down to almost the same dimensions as the quoted picture does. It's possible that's how a cropped photo came up, but the blurring is impossible to miss on the full photo.

by JRP 29.03.16 21:36

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] This would be where the scuff mark would have been. Or not. The colours have been pushed for some reason, and a blur added to areas. The fence for instance, parts are sharper than others.

by Guest 29.03.16 21:43

JRP wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] This would be where the scuff mark would have been. Or not. The colours have been pushed for some reason, and a blur added to areas. The fence for instance, parts are sharper than others.

Exactly what I was thinking. The 'skid mark' could or could not be there. And it's frustratingly panned to the left enough that we can't see the green surface.

Made a very rough photo detailing the anomalies:

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

Hope this isn't off topic, I think it's relevant to the question of what the surface was truly like, but I'll shush if needed :)

by NickE 29.03.16 21:49

HiDeHo wrote:Thanks so much everyone for such great posts It's interesting to see so many details and explanations.

So far I haven't seen any positive proof that the court IS wet and how it got that way. I'm waiting on some information regarding that and whether the dew in the morning could have produced that effect.

Surely though, if it did get wet from any source, wouldn't it be dangerous to play on?

Ultimately, I just want to remind you that if the court WAS wet and could NOT have looked like that on Tuesday morning at 10am then Kate's claim that she took the photo during Maddie's mini tennis could be classified as a LIE.

Then there is the question WHY would she lie?

Was it to place Maddie 'alive' on Tuesday?

If Maddie WASN'T alive on Tuesday then all their statements contain lies.

Wouldn't that be considered a criminal offence?

--------------------------------------------------------
OFF TOPIC but inspired by NickE's signature on the forum... I created a graphic

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

Thank you.

With +10c to +15c and 72% humidity on Sunday morning, yes, very likely and this also fits very well with the kind of weak hazy sunlight on Madeleine´s back on this photo.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by JRP 29.03.16 22:02

April28th wrote:
JRP wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] This would be where the scuff mark would have been. Or not. The colours have been pushed for some reason, and a blur added to areas. The fence for instance, parts are sharper than others.

Exactly what I was thinking. The 'skid mark' could or could not be there. And it's frustratingly panned to the left enough that we can't see the green surface.

Made a very rough photo detailing the anomalies:

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

Hope this isn't off topic, I think it's relevant to the question of what the surface was truly like, but I'll shush if needed :)

Looks like somebody was in a tiz to randomly blur parts of the photo so to lead you away from the intended blur. But maybe that's just me being over suspicious.
One thing is for sure, the blurs were added afterwards and done for a reason. Or is that two things? :-)

by Guest 29.03.16 22:15

Stay on topic, please.

by Spacecowboy 30.03.16 0:18

Spolier:

My theories are based on the evidence I've looked at, so inevitably there's going to be more information out there that I haven't included in this post. There could 50,000 pages of information about this case on the internet, but I've included as much information as I possibly can at the moment. I'm aware that most members on here know much more than I do about this case, so I'm nervous about posting this.
CMOMM encourages new members to research this case and find out the truth, I'm one of those members. I want justice for Madeleine.
My theories are based on the possibility that the tennis ball photo was taken on that holiday, two different people claimed to have taken this photograph on two different days, so it's only fair that I have a detailed look on the possibility that the photograph may have been taken on Tuesday as Kate claims, on Thursday as Rachel claims or on another day.
My theories are based on the possibility that Madeleine's head may have been photoshopped onto the neck of another child's body for most of the reasons Tony B has listed on Page 1 of this thread.
Tony B's list:
1.Different claims for the day it was taken
2. Different claims for who took it, on which camera
3. Adult tennis balls being collected, not soft ones
4. No-one else in shot
5. Madeleine wearing inappropriate large floppy clothes
6. Girl looks to have bigger, sturdier body frame than Madeleine
7. Girl wearing inappropriate sandals
8. Query as to whether Madeleine had such sandals
9. Absence of other photos taken about the same time
10. Girl's arms legs look red and sunburnt - unlike Madeleine's on 'Last Photo'
11. Girl seems to have big bruise on right knee and bruises/scratch marks on right arm
12. Sudden change of colour from red to pale on girl's right hand
13. Suggestion that Madeleine's head has been photoshopped onto girl's body - her head looks to the right of where it 'should' be.
14. Would adults have been playing tennis, with balls being hit at up to 100mph or more, on an adjacent court to where three year old children were allegedly playing mini-tennis?
15. Is the 'right' court in shot?
16. (and per Nina, just above) Girls' sandals or socks show no scuffs or signs of having run over the red/green court.

My theories are based on the possibility that the McCann’s may have borrowed Amelie's purple shorts to another parent for their daughter to wear during that holiday and a photograph taken of that particular girl.

I have also considered Kikoratton's substitute child theory (leave no stone unturned).

Monday 30^th April
The McCann’s may have been visited by Resonate (Richard D. Hall thinks this is possible) and advised The McCann's not to take a photograph of Lobsters creche attendee Ella O' Brien (to later photoshop Madeleine's head onto), but of a child belonging to someone outside of the Tapas 7 because the Portuguese police would ask the McCann’s and the Tapas 7 for photographs of themselves and their children and be able to compare the height, the build of Ella, Ella's skin and the kind of clothes/ shoes she wore on that holiday compared to Madeleine.

Jane Tanner and Gerry McCann wrote Tennis under parents location at 9.15am and 9.30am respectively. Kate McCann claims in her book that she had a tennis group lesson at 9.15am and Gerry at 10.15am. R. Naylor may have also attended Gerry's lesson according a hesitant Jane Tanner in her Rogatory statement on Tue 8^th April 2008, R. Naylor signed himself strangely (probably his daughter) into the creche at 9.25am, 10 minutes after Kate started her lesson at 9.15am.

Note: Kate McCann when discussing Mondays events didn't mention that Mini-Tennis occurred that day nor did Kate mention that it rained that day.

Sunday and Mondays tennis booking sheets aren't available to me, so I don't know whether or not the courts were watered/cleaned at some stage during Sunday evening or Monday morning. Did it rain on Sunday evening? Without evidence confirming that it rained on Sunday evening or evidence that the courts were watered/cleaned on Monday morning, it's possible that the tennis photograph was taken by Jane (as Rachel claimed), Kate or Gerry that morning.

Hideho wrote ''It was only after checking all of the above along with the PdL Weather forecast that I felt confident enough to make this post with the knowledge there was likely no rainfall Monday or Tuesday morning before the mini tennis''.

Summary:
The Tennis ball photo may have been taken on Monday morning, but without any evidence that it rained on Sunday evening, without the availability of Sunday and Mondays tennis booking sheets to confirm whether the courts were watered/cleaned on Sunday evening or Monday morning and HiDeho's comment ''there was no likely rainfall that day'' then it's unlikely the Tennis ball photo was taken on Monday.

Tuesday 1^st May
9am-11am Two Adult Tennis sessions took place, Russell O' Brien at 9am, Gerry McCann at 9.30 and R. Naylor at 9.10am all wrote Tennis under parents location on the Lobsters sheet. Kate McCann claims she attended a tennis lesson that morning in her book and Gerry's lesson started at 10.15am.
9am-10am Presumably Kate McCann had a tennis lesson on Court 1 before Gerry's lesson started at 10.15am.
10am-11am Gerry played tennis, presumably on court 1 as Mini-Tennis started on court 2 at the same time
If the child in the tennis ball photo wore sandals to play tennis in that morning and if the courts were watered/cleaned on Monday evening (unable to clarify this without the availability of Mondays Tennis booking sheet), then is it possible that R. Naylor after finishing his tennis lesson at 10am or after arriving to participate in the following Adult Tennis lesson at 10am on Court 1 called his daughter or Madalene R (who may have attended Lobsters/Mini- Tennis in place of Madeleine McCann or there as a guest only) over to court 1 and greeted them shortly after they arrived at the courts with the Lobsters group, then gave one of the McCann's permission to take a photo of either child (the one who wore the purple shorts and sandals), gave that child some Adult Tennis balls from Court 1 to hold before sending them back to Court 2?
10am MINI TENNIS GRASS begins with Ella O' Brien, E. Naylor and possibly Madalene R present.

10am – 10.15am Kate claims in her book that she left the maintenance workers to themselves and went to the tennis courts (without her camera).

10.15am- 11am Kate claims Jane Tanner stayed at the tennis courts, she ran back to her apartment to grab her camera and returned before MINI TENNIS GRASS ended.

11am or just before 11am or a few minutes after 11am Kate claims she took the tennis photo

11am - MINI TENNIS GRASS ends and the Lobsters group make their way back to the creche.

Note: Georgina Jackson nor Cat Baker (Kate claims in her book Cat Baker instructed the Mini-Tennis lesson) mention anything about anyone taking a picture of Madeleine on the tennis courts before, during or shortly after MINI TENNIS GRASS ended. Did Jane Tanner confirm that Kate took the photo?
If Gerry McCann and R. Naylor participated in the same tennis session between 10am-11am, which is more than likely if Kate McCann had her tennis lesson on Court 1 first, then if Kate really did take that photogragh after arriving back to the tennis courts at around 11am, is it possible that R. Naylor called his daughter or Madalene R (who may have attended Lobsters/Mini-Tennis in place of Madeleine McCann or was there as a guest only) over to court 1, greeted them as they were leaving Court 2 after Mini-Tennis ended, then gave one of the McCann's permission to take a photo of either child (the one who wore the purple shorts and sandals), gave that child some Adult Tennis balls from Court 1 to hold, said goodbye to them, then sent them to catch up with the rest of the Lobsters group as they left the courts?
If we rule out the possibility that Madalene R was Madeleine McCann's substitute that week, then it 's still possible she attended Mini-Tennis as a guest only with her best friend E. Naylor. Cat Baker may have done the McCann’s/Naylors a favour and allowed Madalene R to come and play tennis as a guest. We know Cat Baker may have been known to the McCann’s prior to the holiday.
If the tennis courts were watered/cleaned on Monday evening (were unable to clarify this without the availability of Mondays Tennis booking sheet), then the tennis ball photo may have been taken between 9am-11am that morning.
11am –12 noon Rachel (Oldfield)? and David Payne played tennis on Court 1 and 2 respectively.

Note: Rachel Oldfield nor David Payne claimed to haven taken the tennis court photo and after their session ended they probably went to have lunch on David Payne's balcony.

12 noon – The court cleaners ask everyone including Rachel (Oldfield)? and David Payne to leave the courts, proceed to water the courts, perhaps using a squeegee to help remove the water from the courts.

12.30pm – Both courts unoccupied, cleaned with some water visible on the courts.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
On Tuesday 1st May 2007, Gerald McCann's handset was silent all day. Kate McCanns mobile first activated the Luz antenna at 10.16, but all details of the days calls have been deleted from the handset and there is no nothing in the CD from her mobile provider. Another activation took place at 12.17. The Creche records show that Gerald McCann picked up Madeleine at 12.20 (a bit earlier than usual) but Kate McCann's call at 12.17 does not appear to have been to him, (because his mobile was not activated at all that day). Kate McCann dealt with her last call before leaving for the Tapas Bar at 20.35.
So who did Kate McCann call at 12.17pm? Was it Cat Caker to ask her to forge Gerry McCann’s signature?, Was it A. Naylor who signed her daughter in at 12.30pm? Or was it somebody else?, Did Gerry sign Madeleine into the creche at 12.20pm?
2.15-2.30pm The McCann’s (as stated on the tennis booking form) arrive at the tennis courts, perhaps several minutes before their session started at 2.30pm to stretch their arms and legs, have a warm up.

2.15pm -2.30pm If Madalene R attended MINI TENNIS GRASS session in place of Madeleine McCann or was there as a guest, could this support Georgina's claim that someone called Madeleine (pronounced the same way as Madelene or almost the same way) was present among the group of children conducted by her or did someone with more authority tell Georgina to say she saw Madeleine that day?.
Note: Georgina only mentioned Madeleine's first name during her interview.

If the McCann’s knew, or had been in contact with the Naylor family (they probably did during their Adult tennis sessions between 9am-11am that morning) as suggested by Kikoratton, then is it possible that only 2 hours after the courts were watered/cleaned that afternoon A. Naylor before taking her daughter back to the Lobsters creche at 2.30pm met up with the McCann’s several minutes before 2.30pm, gave the McCann’s permission to take a picture of her daughter, before taking her to the Lobsters creche?

Note: Both Madeleine McCann by Gerry allegedly (24hr time) and E. Naylor by A. Naylor were both signed back into the Lobsters creche at exactly 2.30pm and the twins into their creche by Gerry allegedly ( 1^st initial looks more like a G than a K) at 2.50pm that day, which doesn’t harmonize with Gerry McCann participating in a tennis lesson between 2.30pm-3.30pm. If we take Kikoratton's theory into account then is it possible that A. Naylor after changing E. Naylor (who attended Lobsters/ Mini Tennis that morning) or Madalene R ( possible guest or Maddie sub) out of her/ or their potentially sweaty tennis outfit(s) into a clean outfit(s) wearing Amelie's purple shorts , took either or both children to the tennis courts to meet up with the McCann's, gave the McCann’s permission to photograph either child (the child wearing purple shorts and sandals) before making it to the Lobsters creche at 2.30pm, signing in Madalene R as Madeleine McCann and her own daughter in? Or if Madalene R was not the sub child, A. Naylor may have returned Madalene R to her parents after E. Naylor was dropped off at 2.30pm.

Note: All six children who attended the lobsters creche that morning were signed in from 9am – 9.30am, E. Naylor at 9.10 am and Madeleine at 9.30am. According the Lobsters activity sheet, the children may have made happy handprint stars which involves using paints between 9am-10am, before setting off to the tennis courts, now when you take into account the children also played Mini-Tennis for an hour, it's strange that: A) There's no sweat visible on Madeleine’s forehead in the tennis photo B) No sweat patches visible under the girl's armpit C) No dirt marks visible on the girl's outfit D) Not a single paint mark visible on the girl's outfit E) The girl's outfit looks clean to my eye

Wouldn't you of thought that after a total of 2 hours making handprint stars possibly or after whatever activity the Lobsters group did between 9.00am-10am and by the end of Mini-Tennis when Kate McCann claims she took the tennis photo, that sweat would be visible on the girl's forehead , under her armpits or a single paint or dirt mark visible on the girl's outfit after an active morning?
So, was the tennis photo taken just before Mini-Tennis started on Tuesday at 10am?, shortly after Mini-Tennis ended at 11am as Kate McCann claims? , or if the girl was changed into a clean outfit by A. Naylor was the photo taken just before 2.30pm?
2.30pm -3.30pm The McCann’s played tennis, presumably on Court 1.
Summary:
Starting with the most likely theory (just my interpretation of the evidence)

The Tennis ball photo may have been taken just before 2.30pm, assuming the girl was changed into a clean outfit by A. Naylor , we know according to Tuesdays tennis booking sheet that the courts were watered/cleaned between 12.00noon- 12.30pm, an hour to 90 minutes after Mini-Tennis ended that afternoon.

The Tennis ball photo may have been taken at around 10am that morning, which could explain why Madeleine's head in the tennis photo has no sweat visible on it, why the girl in the photo has no sweat visible under her armpirts, but that dosen't explain why no dirt or paint mark is visible on her outfit considering what activites she (E. Naylor or if Madalene R was the sub) did between 9.00am- 10am at the creche that morning and taking HiDeho's comment ''there was likely no rainfall Monday or Tuesday morning before the mini tennis''. and that the courts were watered/cleaned an hour to 90 minutes after Mini- Tennis ended that afternoon into consideration, then it's unlikely that the photo was taken at 10am that morning.

The Tennis ball photo may have been taken at around 11am as Kate claims, but this is the least likely theory considering the evidence mentioned above.
Wednesday 2^nd May

9am- 11am The Tennis Court booking sheet suggests that it rained on Tuesday evening, started raining on Wednesday morning or it rained from Tuesday evening and continued raining until Wednesday. Lessons on court 1 were postponed during this period.
9am Jane Tanner May 10^th 2007 statement:
9.00 Tennis lesson by tennis coach with Kate.
Kids Club (E*** & Madeleine plus 4 other children also had a tennis lesson. Responsible Cat and Georgina. Jane Tanner and Kate watched kids lesson on tennis court, but left before finish.
Jane went to beach. Met Paynes. Also met Rob (husband of Ornya) staying at resort. Rob keen surfer. Believes from London.

Note: Kate and Jez Wilkins both mentioned that the Tennis lessons were postponed that morning, so she may have been referring to Tuesday's events.

Note: Kate McCann ''Today it rained. The children went to their clubs, but our tennis lessons were postponed''.

Jez Wilkins also stated ''On Wednesday, 2nd May, I could see it was raining and the tennis lesson was postponed. It was re-scheduled for 2:30 pm''.

Note: There isn't anybody called Ornya on the guest list with a husband called Rob, in fact there isn't any females beginning with the letter O who travelled with anyone called Mr Rob on the guest list. Did Jane Tanner try to conceal the identity of A. Naylor and R. Naylor? If yes, It certainly wasn't the first time that Jane Tanner attempted to conceal the identity of someone she or the Tapas 9 may have known as we'll find out when discussing Thursday's events.

Jane Tanner Rogatory statement Tue 8^th April 2008:

4078 “And on the Wednesday at the sailing, you mentioned there was somebody else present, you couldn’t remember their name.”
Reply “Yeah.”

4078 “Was that another guest?”
Reply “That was, yeah that was another guest and his wife actually did the tennis lessons with us err and he’d done the first, I say, he was, the rest of us who did the windsurfing, it was Russ, me, Dave and Fi, and this other chap on THE FIRST DAY so I’d met him on the, would it be the Sunday or the mon, the Monday, I met him on the MONDAY. So Russell didn’t come down for the err the second WINDSURFING lesson which turned into a sailing lesson.

Is this the second time that Jane Tanner has attempted to conceal the identity of keen surfer R. Naylor?

We know R..Naylor , Russell O' Brien and Gerry McCann attended the same lesson, presumably after Kate's lesson on Tuesday between 10am-11am, so members of the Tapas 9 must've got to know R. Naylor a bit better over the two days, or did some members of the Tapas 9 already know R. Naylor?

11am – 12am Mathew Oldfield and/ or Rachel Oldfield played tennis

Note: Mathew Oldfield nor Rachel Oldfield claimed to have taken the tennis photograph.

12.30pm – Both Madeleine McCann by Cat Baker and E. Naylor by A. Naylor were signed out at 12.30pm, E. Naylor didn't return to the creche that day.

2.30pm– 3.30pm Gerry McCann played tennis according to Kate.

2.45pm – Madeleine McCann signed back into the creche by Kate

3.30pm – 4.30pm Kate McCann wrote tennis under parents location on the Jellyfish register at 2.40pm. Kate wrote in her book that her lesson followed after Gerry's lesson.

Did Kate or Gerry take a photograph of the tennis photo which would've had rain on it before, during, or after their tennis lessons that day?

Summary:

The tennis ball photo may have been taken on Wednesday after Madeleine McCann and E. Naylor were signed out at 12.30pm. A. Naylor, before returning back to her apartment with her daughter and/ or Madalene R possibly, may have went straight to the tennis courts to have the picture taken, but it rained that day and there are no raindrops visible on MM's head or on the pink hat and the girl's shorts and T-Shirt look dry and clean to my eye.

After going back to the Naylors apartment after 12.30pm, got changed into a clean outfit, it's possible that either girl was taken to the tennis courts later on during that day to have the photo taken, but with a lack of evidence to support this theory, no evidence that Mini-Tennis (booking sheet) took place that day, no evidence of when it stopped raining that day and no evidence from the Tapas 9 from what I've read so far indicating that they met up with another parent outside of the Tapas 9 and their daughter at the courts that day, it's unlikely the photo was taken on Wednesday.

Thursday 3^rd May

Note: The tennis courts were used throughout the day, nor was any court cleaning scheduled on that day, so we can deduce that it probably didn't rain that day.

9am-11am Kate McCann wrote tennis under parents location on the Lobsters register at 9.10am.

Kate McCann wrote ''After my lesson, I hung around on the grassy play area, watching Gerry on the court and chatting to Russell, who I’d found there''.

10am -11am Gerry McCann played tennis according to Kate McCann, presumably on court 1

10am – 11am Mini-Tennis- Toddlers group 2?, No children from the Lobsters attended this session as they were already at their creche and preparing to go Mini-Sailing at 10.30am.

11am-12am Mathew Oldfield, Rachel Oldfield and Jane Tanner (Rogotary Tue 8^th April 2008) played tennis with Dan.

11am.12am Foster -his daughter signed onto the tennis booking sheet

11am – 12am Kate McCann says in her book '' A guest (Nigel Foster) appeared with a video camera to record his three-year-old daughter playing mini-tennis'', as the tennis booking sheet states. Kate McCann's, Russell O' Brien and Nigel Foster engage in a conversation.

Note: This is the first time Kate McCann mentions in her book that she had been in contact with a parent outside of the Tapas 9 and a parent who had a 3 year old daughter.

Why did Kate McCann only refer to Nigel Foster as a guest? Was Kate McCann attempting to conceal Nigel Foster's identity? If yes, Why?

Interesting that Rachel claimed that Jane took the photo on Thursday, is it possible that Jane Tanner or another member of the Tapas 9 group (most of the Tapas 9 were at the courts at that time) was given permission by Nigel Foster to take a photograph of his daughter? Admittedly sandals are unsuitable to play tennis in, but as Rachel claimed Jane took the photograph that day, it would be remiss of me not to even consider this possibility (leave no stone unturned).

Kate McCann '' He looked a little embarrassed and laughingly remarked to us that filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man. It led to a conversation between the three of us about pedophiles. I remember Russell talking about how everything had got a bit out of hand, that these days people were so untrusting you hardly dared speak to children you didn’t know. What he was effectively saying was that the world had become paranoid; that he wanted his daughters to grow up with confidence and a sense of freedom. The other dad and I chipped in with our views – I mentioned not being allowed to take photographs of your own kids in swimming pools any longer – and we agreed that it was a shame things had come to this, especially for the children. It would be some days before Russell and I were able to acknowledge to each other the horrible irony of this conversation''.

Note: Isn't it rather strange that only a short time after meeting supposedly a total stranger that Nigel Foster remarked to Kate and Russell that filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man? How many people would have thoughts like that on the forefront of their minds shortly after meeting a total stranger for the first time? Even worse, moments later they start talking about pedophiles. Why on earth would anyone have a conversation about such a sensitive subject moments after meeting with a total stranger?

Could this suggest that Kate McCann and Russell O' Brien knew Nigel Foster quite well?

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

Report on Visualisation and Analysis of Photographs

On this date, I can inform that photographs from a CD provided by Leicestershire police were visualised and analysed, these referred to photographs taken by the F***** family during their holidays at the OC between the 28th April and 5th May 2007.

Upon analysing these photos, the result was that there was at least one photograph where some of the elements making up the group of friends of the McCann's couple were visualised, nothing relevant being found for the investigation.

Portimao, 23rd May 2007.

Inspector

Ricardo Paiva

So apparently Nigel Foster knew the McCann's well enough to take photographs of the McCann’s and their group of friends and engage in a conversation about a sensitive subject.

Jane Tanner Rogatory statement Tue 8^th April 2008

4078 “Try and get yourself back there and go through the motions that you went through on that Thursday”.
Reply “Yeah”.

4078    “And see how you get on”.
Reply    “Okay. Erm, that morning I didn’t go for breakfast at Millennium, I think we’d been a bit later the night before, so we just thought, ‘Oh let’s just’, we just stayed in bed a bit longer. We didn’t, so I didn’t, like I say, I didn’t go, I just went straight to the, straight to the tennis lesson. So I think Russell took, Russell took Ella and Evie up to the Millennium with, erm, I think he went with Matt. Again, I’m not sure, but I think he went up with Matt and Grace up to the Millennium, and Rachael and I went to play tennis. So I think that was the only morning I probably didn’t go, didn’t go for breakfast, was the Thursday. So then we had our, we had the tennis lesson as normal in the morning. I think Evie, no, Evie definitely didn’t go to the Kids Club that morning. So I think Russell went for breakfast, took the kids for breakfast at the MILLENIUM, then walked down, dropped Ella off at her Kids Club and then brought Evie back to watch us playing tennis, no. No, I got that wrong, sorry, doh, I got it wrong actually. So that, you know how I said on the Wednesday we had been watching them having their tennis lesson and we spoke to the chap, it wasn’t the person that said ‘Isn’t it bad that you video’. Ella, so, hang on, let’s go back. I’m just getting myself all. On the Wednesday me, Rachael and Kate watched Ella and Madeleine having their tennis lesson”.

Note: When Jane states '' So that, you know how I said on the Wednesday we had been watching them having their tennis lesson and we spoke to the chap, it wasn’t the person that said ‘Isn’t it bad that you video’. Ella, so, hang on, let’s go back. I’m just getting myself all. On the Wednesday me, Rachael and Kate watched Ella and Madeleine having their tennis lesson”, she probably, almost certainly was referring to Tuesday, Tuesdays evidence clearly suggests this.

4078    “Yeah”.
Reply    “But then on the Thursday another group of children came down for their tennis lesson and that’s when Russell and this other person was there with the video camera. Because just going backwards, I’m thinking Russell dropped Ella off and then came to watch us finishing our tennis lesson with Evie, because Evie didn’t go to the Kids Club. And after our tennis lesson that day another group of children came down for their tennis lesson, so”.
4078    “Not Madeleine?”
Reply    “Not Madeleine and Ella, no, another group. And we sort of just watched them starting and that’s when the conversation with this other person with the video camera, because he was taking pictures of his daughter”.
4078    “Are you sure that it was his daughter?”
Reply    “I’m absolutely. It definitely was his daughter, yes, yeah”.
4078    “So it was not sort of a stranger we have got with a video camera?”
Reply    “No, no, I think he was actually on our flight out, so we had actually spoken to him during the week. So, no, he was definitely, he was definitely a guest who had his daughter there. But, yeah, I got that wrong. And that makes more sense because I was thinking the day before I would have gone off to play, to do the same, whereas that day, after the tennis lesson, I didn’t do any other activity, for want of, yeah, so. Does that make sense?”
4078    “Yeah, it does, but just to clarify though, that on the Wednesday, when you saw Madeleine and Ella had her tennis lesson, do you remember if Russell was there then?”
Reply    “I don’t remember if he was there, but I don’t’ think so”.
4078    “But on the Thursday he was there”.
Reply    “He was definitely there”.
4078    “Watching Madeleine and Ella”.
Reply    “It was the other, it was other part of the, it was the same age group but it was the other half of the group that were having their tennis lesson”.
4078    “Okay”.
Reply    “No, I thought when I was saying that, that it didn’t sound quite fright, so, yeah”.
4078    “Okay”.
Reply    “So, yeah, so we had, erm, the tennis lesson finished, so I’ve had that conversation about ‘Isn’t it awful you can’t watch your daughter’, blah, blah, blah, ‘You can’t film your own daughter’. And then we walked down to the beach with Evie. So I think, erm, I think we walked down, no, Dave and Fi were already down there and, no, we met. Hang on. Sorry, I’m just trying to think.

Note: So now we have two people, Jane and Kate attempt to conceal the identity of the same man.
Jane confirms that he wasn't a stranger, that he was on the same flight out to Portugal with herself and Russell O' Brien and that they spoke to him during the week.

Kate McCann didn't even mention Nigel Foster's name and only referred to him as a guest, unbelievable!

Hideho wrote: ''I don't think we can take any of Rachael’s claim as credible. Even the police questioned her on which tennis court the children played and she didn’t get that correct''.

Is it possible that perhaps Rachel was referring to Nigel Fosters daughter? He may have simply brought his daughter over to Court 1 (where most of the Tapas 9 were situated apparently) at around 11am to have a chat with Kate, Russell and Jane, then gave her some Adult Tennis balls from Court 1 to hold before Jane took the tennis ball photo?

Kate McCann didn't dispute Rachel Oldfield's claim that Jane took the photo on Thursday in her book, nor did Jane Tanner dispute Rachel's claim that she took the tennis ball photo on Thursday, not to my knowledge anyway. Why didn't Kate McCann accuse Rachel Oldfield of lying about her claim and put the record straight in her book released 4 years later?

1.30am– 2.30am Jane Tanner in her Rogatory statement said her and Rachel Oldfield went back to the courts to play tennis as the courts were free, which the Tennis booking sheet on Thursday confirms.

3.30pm-4.30pm Gerry and Kate have a private tennis session.

Tony B wrote '' If it is a water tide-mark, and having regard to the rest of the thread, which suggests that cleaning with water was not a daily occurrence but mostly likely just a seasonal exercise at the beginning of a season, do you agree that the tide-mark would most likely be caused by rain water drying out, rather than any use of cleaning water?

If you do agree, that might help HideHo to be more precise about when the Tennis Balls Photo was taken.

I think most of the rain that week fell during the day on Wednesday. So the tide-mark would occur sometime after the rain had dried out.

Thursday morning would then be a strong candidate. Especially as we know it was cloudy all that morning''.

Summary:

We know it rained on Wednesday

We know the evidence indicates that Thursday was a dry day

We know Ella O' Brien, E. Naylor and possibly Madalene R were all at the creche that morning and went Mini-Sailing at 10.30am

We know Nigel Fosters daughter was booked to start playing tennis at 11am

We know Kate, Rachel, Gerry, Matthew O, Russell and Jane Tanner, (that's a total of 6 members of the Tapas 9) were at the courts, either on or near Court 1 according to the Tennis booking sheet and other evidence at around 11am

We know Nigel Foster's daughter did not attend the creche that week, her name is nowhere to be found on the creche registers

We know Kate, Russell, Jane and Nigel Foster had a conversation about a sensitive subject

We know thanks to Jane Tanner herself , that Nigel Foster ''wasn't a stranger'' , her, Nigel and Russell all boarded the same plane to Portugal, which suggests they knew each prior to the holiday and they spoke to him during that week

We know Rachel claimed that the tennis ball photo was taken by Jane Tanner on Thursday

Kate McCann's didn't dispute Rachel's claim in her book released 4 years later

Jane Tanner didn't dispute Rachel's claim from what I've read so far

We know photographs from a CD provided by Leicestershire police were visualised and analysed by the Portuguese police, photographs taken by the Foster family during their holidays at the OC between the 28th April and 5th May 2007 and that a least one one photograph where some of the elements making up the group of friends of the McCann's couple were visualised

Taking into account what Tony B said ''I think most of the rain that week fell during the day on Wednesday. So the tide-mark would occur sometime after the rain had dried out.

Thursday morning would then be a strong candidate. Especially as we know it was cloudy all that morning''. and all the other evidence about Thursday into consideration, then I suggest this occurred:

Kate or Jane Tanner borrowed Amelie's purple shorts to Nigel Foster, possibly on Wednesday evening (remember Jane Tanner admitted that she spoke to Nigel Foster during the week), On Thursday morning Nigel Foster changes his daughter into Amelie's purple shorts and a T-Shirt, puts her coat on, before heading to the Tennis courts at 11am, takes her coat off, brings her over to Court 1, gave her some Adult Tennis balls from court 1 to hold (which might explain why Rachel Oldfield said Court 1), Jane Tanner takes the picture, then Nigel Foster takes his daughter over to Court 2 just before her Mini-Tennis session started, that might explain why in the tennis ball photo:

A) There's no sweat visible on Madeleine's forehead, B) There's no sweat visible under the girl's armpits C) There's no dirt marks visible on the girl's outfit D) There's no paint mark visible on the girls outfit E) The girl's T-Shirt is dry F) Amelie's pink hat is dry G) Amelie's purple shorts is dry and H) The girl's outfit looks clean to my eye because Nigel Foster's daughter did not attend any creche that morning (or any other day), therefore did not participate in any activities that might of caused her to dirty her clothes prior to 11am on Thursday morning.

Photographs taken during that holiday

Photograph of a pale skinned Madeleine taken on Saturday

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

Photograph of a pale skinned Madeleine taken on Sunday

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

Photograph of E. Naylor with her 11 month old brother and parents taken in 2007?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If this photo is E. Naylor then she isn't the girl in the tennis ball photo as her body frame is much thinner and she's even more thinner than Madeleine McCann in the last photo taken on Sunday! and despite considering Kikoratton's theory there is limited evidence to suggest that a picture of Madalene R was taken and it's uncertain whether or not she was in Portugal that week.

However Jane Tanner's attempts to conceal the identity of R. Naylor at least twice from what I've read is suspicious, I can't put my finger on it at the moment, perhaps it's something to do with E. Naylor or Madalene R after all

The Tennis ball photo of a tanned (sunburnt) girl with a bigger, sturdier body frame than Madeleine

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

A tanned photo of Gerry McCann taken at the end of that week

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

The photograph of the tanned( sunburnt) girl in the tennis ball photo in comparison to the tanned photo of Gerry McCann taken at the end of that week could also suggest that the tennis ball photo was taken on Thursday at the very latest.

Friday 4^th May

Alex Woolfall arrives in Portugal and seizes the McCann’s camera.

The Times article dated 6^th October 2007

The McCann's 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.’

Note: Whoever made this statement whether Gerry or Alex Woolfall? ''I said to Kate, ‘Let’s try to identify pictures where her face is visible’ is very specific about what he's looking for on the McCann’s digital camera, he said let's try to identify pictures of where her FACE is visible.
Why '‘LET'S TRY to identify pictures where her face is visible’? This sounds like the McCann’s desperately attempted to identify a picture of Madeleine's face among the limited number of photographs of her taken on that holiday on their camera.

If the McCann's had lots of pictures of Madeleine (blatantly obvious now that they didn't) taken on that holiday on their digital camera, then why didn't whoever made that statement say '' I said to Kate let's identify the various pictures of Madeleine taken on that holiday''? Why say '' let's try to identify pictures of where her FACE is visible''? This is just as good as admitting that they only wanted to look for a picture of Madeleine's face to photoshop onto the body of Nigel Foster's daughter.

Why was only one tennis ball photo handed to the media?

Well from the McCann’s perspective only one photograph was needed, preferably featuring lots of tennis court and very little of the girl in the photo. The majority of the British public who read mainstream media newspapers probably do think the tennis ball photo is what it purports to be, so no need to release more photographs.

Why isn't this photo a close up shot of the girl?

Why take a close up shot and hand it to the Portuguese police to make it easier for them to identify the anomalies in this photograph as I did when I examined the condition of the T-Shirt worn and Amelie's purple shorts, asked myself would her clothes be in that condition at the times when this photograph may have been taken as discussed above, not to mention Tony B's list on page 1 of this thread. If the Portuguese police got the chance to examine the tennis ball photo on Thursday 3^rd May which they should've done as the McCann's should've handed over their camera to them on Thursday night, they probably would've ascertained that the photo isn't genuine early on, may have notified the public about that, which would've scuppered the McCann's plans to set up a Fraudulent fund days later.

Why is nobody else in shot?

The McCann's had already decided that they were never ever going to hand their memory cards and memory cards belonging to any other member of the Tapas 7 to the Portuguese police, perhaps one of the reasons for this is that Jane Tanner took more than one picture of Nigel Foster's daughter, possibly took pictures of Nigel Foster, his daughter and other members of the tapas 9 together in same photograph, after all Jane Tanner admitted that Nigel wasn't a stranger and they travelled on the same plane together and she spoke to him during the week, so a least one photo of Nigel's Fosters daughter (not photoshopped) may have been saved on one of the memory cards. If the McCann’s handed their memory cards and those belonging to members of the Tapas 7 to the Portuguese police, they may have been able to retrieve any deleted photographs taken of Nigel Foster's daughter.

Who's memory cards from an Olympus camera did Nigel Foster hand over to Leicestershire Police?

If those memory cards did belong to anyone from the Tapas 9 then Jane Tanner would be my number choice as the McCann’s had a Canon camera.

by **HiDeHo** 30.03.16 9:59

Thanks so much for reposting that again Skyrocket smilie

That is a lot of research and collating it together and certainly worth consideration. I haven't finished reading it yet so please bear with me for a response.

Kiko did amazing research and is sadly not around forums and groups to input on current discussions.

My time has been spent researching the timelines and statements so I tend to stay with files and links and avoid anything which I cant provide a link for. This means that it is difficult for me to create a theory unless the files 'tell' me.

This may sound odd to some who believe I have a 'theory' that something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week. I didn't base that on a thought that it may have happened and look for details that 'fit'.

I studied the statements and timelines and discovered an enormous amount of discrepancies which seemed to start on Tuesday morning.

Logic told me the reason behind discrepancies is to probably hide something so I figured that maybe something had happened by Tuesday.

To back up that thought I studied all the statements of those that claimed to have seen Maddie during the week. I knew that if I found a credible sighting during the week that the discrepancies were fore some other reason. I dont try to make things fit, I look at what the files 'tell' me.

Quite shocking to discover that the only specific credible sighting of Maddie was on Sunday! This meant that the last time she was seen was Sunday and the discrepancies (to hide something?) started after Monday.

I dont try to figure out WHAT happened or WHY, only that it appears that something may have happened.

I have used the similar logic in this thread...

I looked at the 'ins' and 'outs' of the creche and noticed that ROB and GM tended to arrive at similar times and that one childwas signed in and the other signed out or vice versa.

Whether it would have been possible for that to happen is up for discussion. I am merely laying the groundwork (based on the files) to maybe explain how it may have been possible for Maddie to have been shown to exist at the creche when maybe she wasn't.

I look forward to someone proving that it would have been impossible. Not by opinion, but by logic maybe.

Was it just coincidence that one child was signed in and one child was signed out or could that have been an indication of a cover up.

I'm happy to be proven that it COULD be possible or that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE. I only want the truth about what happened.

Regarding the substitute child, I haven't researched it and could make no assumptions one way or the other and still have a way to go reading your theory, so I will let you know smilie

by skyrocket 30.03.16 10:24

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - morning! It was [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'s post not mine! Too many of us space geeks around!

I agree, there was a lot of work involed in their post.

by Spacecowboy 30.03.16 10:27

HiDeHo wrote:Thanks so much for reposting that again Skyrocket

That is a lot of research and collating it together and certainly worth consideration. I haven't finished reading it yet so please bear with me for a response.

Kiko did amazing research and is sadly not around forums and groups to input on current discussions.

My time has been spent researching the timelines and statements so I tend to stay with files and links and avoid anything which I cant provide a link for. This means that it is difficult for me to create a theory unless the files 'tell' me.

This may sound odd to some who believe I have a 'theory' that something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week. I didn't base that on a thought that it may have happened and look for details that 'fit'.

I studied the statements and timelines and discovered an enormous amount of discrepancies which seemed to start on Tuesday morning.

Logic told me the reason behind discrepancies is to probably hide something so I figured that maybe something had happened by Tuesday.

To back up that thought I studied all the statements of those that claimed to have seen Maddie during the week. I knew that if I found a credible sighting during the week that the discrepancies were fore some other reason. I dont try to make things fit, I look at what the files 'tell' me.

Quite shocking to discover that the only specific credible sighting of Maddie was on Sunday! This meant that the last time she was seen was Sunday and the discrepancies (to hide something?) started after Monday.

I dont try to figure out WHAT happened or WHY, only that it appears that something may have happened.

I have used the similar logic in this thread...

I looked at the 'ins' and 'outs' of the creche and noticed that ROB and GM tended to arrive at similar times and that one childwas signed in and the other signed out or vice versa.

Whether it would have been possible for that to happen is up for discussion. I am merely laying the groundwork (based on the files) to maybe explain how it may have been possible for Maddie to have been shown to exist at the creche when maybe she wasn't.

I look forward to someone proving that it would have been impossible. Not by opinion, but by logic maybe.

Was it just coincidence that one child was signed in and one child was signed out or could that have been an indication of a cover up.

I'm happy to be proven that it COULD be possible or that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE. I only want the truth about what happened.

Regarding the substitute child, I haven't researched it and could make no assumptions one way or the other and still have a way to go reading your theory, so I will let you know

I haven't tried to make things fit either, my theories are based on the evidence in the files.

Why did Kate claim she took the photo on Tuesday?
Is it because Tuesday was the last day Lobsters played Mini Tennis? It rained on Wednesday, lessons were postponed, Lobsters Mini-Tennis didn't take place on Wednesday according to the evidence, Lobsters didn't play Mini Tennis on Thursday either, they went sailing that morning.

Did Kate claim she took the photo on Tuesday because Tuesday was the latest day she could claim to have taken the photo to place Madeleine alive on Tuesday?

I'm sure if Thursday was the last day Lobsters played Mini-Tennis that week, which they didn't, then Kate would've screamed from the rooftops that she took the tennis photo on Thursday to place Madeleine alive on Thursday, which makes Rachel's claim that Jane Tanner took the picture on Thursday even more significant.

@ Hideho - Even though I've considered Kikoratton's theory and theories involving the Naylors, my number ONE theory based on the actual evidence is that the photo was taken of Nigel Fosters daughter on Thursday morning.

Richard D. Hall, PeterMac, Tony B and many others would like to know why there isn't any photographs taken of Madeleine after Sunday lunchtime.

by Guest 30.03.16 12:31

I can confirm, after speaking with the PJ directly, that the photos in the files were delivered to them in full colour and definition.

ETA - apologies [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] if my posts went off topic. They were intended as a way of finding out whether it's the same court we're talking about, as from there the blurring becomes inexplicable since it would confirm such (and whether the surface had any sign of wetness). So yes, they were well intentioned, but I will talk about it in a different thread instead.

by NickE 30.03.16 13:52

*The McCann´s bring two cameras with them and just like all other holiday makers they were excited to take photos of their kids on a holiday.

*Saturday 28/4: They and began to take photos right away when the kids was playing at the playground.

*Sunday 29/4: New exciteing day on this suntrip and they bring their camera with them in the morning, Gerry and Kate took their kids with them and went to talk to the Tennis instructors about the lesson´s,in the meantime was Maddie playing on the empty tenniscourt and Kate prob took the photo her.(IMO)

*Sunday 29/4: "The last photo".

If the tennis photo was taken on Tuesday or Wednesday,why did they take only one photo on Madeleine in the middle of the week when all other known photos was taken on Sat and Sun?
It doesn´t make sense.

Tennis instructor GEORGINA LOUISE JACKSON:
"As for the parents, she 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".

Tennis instructor: DAN STUK:
"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".

Gerry didn´t mention that he met the tennis instructors or had a tennis lesson on Sunday morning.

GERRY MCCANN STATEMENT 10 MAY 2007

"The following day (Sunday) the children woke up at 08h00, he and his wife having woken up at 07h30. They dressed and about 08h40 left the apartment going to the MILLENIUM restaurant, once more on foot and by the same route as the previous night, but without the mistake referred to previously, arriving there at 08h45/09h00. The group did not all arrive at the same time, rather in a phased manner, because they were not all seated at the same table.
----- He thinks that MO and wife RMO did not take breakfast due to the former having spent a bad night with vomiting and diarrhoea. At breakfast the children sat at the same table among the adults, it finished at 09h25.
----- The deponent, his wife and three children went to the OCEAN CLUB by the same route where they arrived at 09h40, the deponent having entered the apartment by the main door, which was locked, collecting a bag with clothing and creams for the children [then] going inside the resort area. The twins stayed at the creche next to the TAPAS, which was for children of two years of age, and then he and KATE took MADELEINE to the other creche for older children situated on the 1st floor at the main reception of the resort, arriving there at 09h50."

TWO Tennis instructors told the police that Gerry and Kate was seeing them on Sunday morning and had a lesson, why did Gerry McCann lied about this and told the police he was doing something else?

by Spacecowboy 30.03.16 19:18

NickE wrote:*The McCann´s bring two cameras with them and just like all other holiday makers they were excited to take photos of their kids on a holiday.

*Saturday 28/4: They and began to take photos right away when the kids was playing at the playground.

*Sunday 29/4: New exciteing day on this suntrip and they bring their camera with them in the morning, Gerry and Kate took their kids with them and went to talk to the Tennis instructors about the lesson´s,in the meantime was Maddie playing on the empty tenniscourt and Kate prob took the photo her.(IMO)

There's water or rain clearly visible on the tennis court in the tennis ball photo.

Do you have any evidence that it rained on Sunday?, or if the courts were watered/cleaned on Sunday?, according to PeterMac Sunday was the hottest day of the week. Did the McCann's claim to have taken the photo on Sunday? Did another member of the Tapas 7 claim that the McCann's took the photo on Sunday? Did the Tennis instructors claim that the McCann's took a photo of their daughter on the tennis courts on Sunday?

*Sunday 29/4: "The last photo".

If the tennis photo was taken on Tuesday or Wednesday,why did they take only one photo on Madeleine in the middle of the week when all other known photos was taken on Sat and Sun?
It doesn´t make sense.

What also doesn't make sense is this bit of The Times Article on 6th Oct 2007

The McCann's 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’.

If the McCann's really did take a photo of Madeleine on the tennis courts why did Alex Woolfall or Gerry say “I said to Kate, ‘Let’s try to identify pictures where her face is visible’? If you're taking a picture of someone, you're going to take a picture of their face aren't you?

@ Nick E - Is your post aimed at me?
If it is aimed at me then I'm not suggesting the photo was taken on Tuesday or Wednesday either, I just collated evidence of when The McCann's, their friends , people they knew/spoke to were at the Tennis courts on Tuesday and Wednesday, then examined the possibility of when the photo (if the photo was taken on those days) may have been taken based on the evidence.

No one will ever convince me that the Tennis Ball photo is a genuine picture of Madeleine's body.

I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince people that the Tennis Ball photo isn't a genuine photo of Madeleine's body.

We're all entitled to our own opinions.

And my opinion based on the evidence points to the photo being taken on Thursday as I've highlighted.

by **HiDeHo** 30.03.16 19:58

Lets remember that ALL of our opinions/thoughts are important and none should be dismissed (unless a good reason)

It's all of us discussing this case, or this particular topic that gives us all an opportunity to draw our own conclusions based on knowledge.

We are all here for the same reason and we all have our own knowledge base on which to form our own opinions.

Every comment is worthy of consideration and I appreciate all the input and hope that noone feels they are obliged to believe any other opinion other than their own.
If I am wrong in my thoughts I will be happy, because that will mean we know the TRUTH and THATS whats most important smilie

by NickE 30.03.16 21:26

Spacecowboy wrote:
NickE wrote:*The McCann´s bring two cameras with them and just like all other holiday makers they were excited to take photos of their kids on a holiday.

*Saturday 28/4: They and began to take photos right away when the kids was playing at the playground.

*Sunday 29/4: New exciteing day on this suntrip and they bring their camera with them in the morning, Gerry and Kate took their kids with them and went to talk to the Tennis instructors about the lesson´s,in the meantime was Maddie playing on the empty tenniscourt and Kate prob took the photo her.(IMO)

There's water or rain clearly visible on the tennis court in the tennis ball photo.

Do you have any evidence that it rained on Sunday?, or if the courts were watered/cleaned on Sunday?, according to PeterMac Sunday was the hottest day of the week. Did the McCann's claim to have taken the photo on Sunday? Did another member of the Tapas 7 claim that the McCann's took the photo on Sunday? Did the Tennis instructors claim that the McCann's took a photo of their daughter on the tennis courts on Sunday?

*Sunday 29/4: "The last photo".

If the tennis photo was taken on Tuesday or Wednesday,why did they take only one photo on Madeleine in the middle of the week when all other known photos was taken on Sat and Sun?
It doesn´t make sense.

What also doesn't make sense is this bit of The Times Article on 6th Oct 2007

The McCann's 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’.

If the McCann's really did take a photo of Madeleine on the tennis courts why did Alex Woolfall or Gerry say “I said to Kate, ‘Let’s try to identify pictures where her face is visible’? If you're taking a picture of someone you're going to take picture of their face aren't you?

@ Nick E - Is your post aimed at me?
If it is aimed at me then I'm not suggesting the photo was taken on Tuesday or Wednesday either, I just collated evidence of when The McCann's, their friends , people they knew/spoke to were at the Tennis courts on Tuesday and Wednesday, then examined the possibility of when the photo (if the photo was taken on those days) may have been taken based on the evidence.

No one will ever convince me that the Tennis Ball photo is a genuine picture of Madeleine's body.

I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince people that the Tennis Ball photo isn't a genuine photo of Madeleine's body.

We're all entitled to our own opinions.

And my opinion based on the evidence points to the photo being taken on Thursday as I've highlighted.

We're all entitled to our own opinions.

Yes, different angles is always good.

There's water or rain clearly visible on the tennis court in the tennis ball photo.
It looks like that´s the case,yes.

Do you have any evidence that it rained on Sunday?,
No,it didn´t rain on Sunday but I think the photo was taken mid morning on Sunday and the humidity was 72% and +10c to+15c that morning that should cause dew.

or if the courts were watered/cleaned on Sunday?,
See above

according to PeterMac Sunday was the hottest day of the week.
Yes, Peter is right, see above,mid-morning

Did the McCann's claim to have taken the photo on Sunday?
I believe they used this photo as an alibi to show that MBM was still around later in that week,just like the "last photo" placed MBM by the pool May 3rd.
And obviously,on May 10 Gerry didn´t even remember he have been on the tenniscourt that morning,he said he was somewhere else.

Did another member of the Tapas 7 claim that the McCann's took the photo on Sunday?
No,why should we trust them with all the obvious lies in the police interrogations.

Did the Tennis instructors claim that the McCann's took a photo of their daughter on the tennis courts on Sunday?

No,from the their statements they had a meeting in the morning about the tennis lessons,they did not specified where they had this meeting,on the tenniscourt? a short distance from the tenniscourts? if yes,Madeleine could have playing around for a short time on the court during that meeting without the instructors noticed that.

No,it was not aimed for you it was my thought´s and Tuesday and some other days for this photo have been widely debated.

by j.rob 30.03.16 22:52

Snipped from spacecowboy's post upthread:

11am.12am Foster -his daughter signed onto the tennis booking sheet

11am – 12am Kate McCann says in her book '' A guest (Nigel Foster) appeared with a video camera to record his three-year-old daughter playing mini-tennis'', as the tennis booking sheet states. Kate McCann's, Russell O' Brien and Nigel Foster engage in a conversation.

Note: This is the first time Kate McCann mentions in her book that she had been in contact with a parent outside of the Tapas 9 and a parent who had a 3 year old daughter.

Why did Kate McCann only refer to Nigel Foster as a guest? Was Kate McCann attempting to conceal Nigel Foster's identity? If yes, Why?

-------

I think Nigel Forster is a genuine eye-witness and a real thorn in the TM side. I have written many times on here about what I think might have happened, based on the rogatory statements. I personally think that Nigel Foster (from Southampton I do believe) is an important unbiased (if such things exist in this case...) eye-witness.

I think he 'caught' member of TM (probably Russell, imo who would be very memorable as he is exceptionally tall - much taller than the other Tapas males) trying to take covert video-recorder footage of his (Nigel's) three year old daughter playing mini-tennis at her mini-tennis session on Thursday morning. TM, in true fashion, have 'spun' the account of what happened. But if you look at one of the early rogatories (translated from Portuguese) you can see that the police are very interested in Russell's account of this encounter. And they question him in such a way that he is unable to deny that it was Nigel who approached the group, and what Nigel said to them was very different indeed to Kate's account in her book and indeed to Russell's (later) accounts when he too follows the TM 'spin'.

Russell is unable to deny, in that early Portuguese statement, that it was Nigel who approached members of the TM group - Russell, Kate (and I think Matt too in some accounts - there are varying accounts of who was there) and Nigel who told them that their filming of his daughter in that way was making him uncomfortable. Police question Russell about a video-recorder (as witnessed by Nigel, obviously) and Russell denies having seen one!

I think it is for this reason that Kate and Russell's account of what Nigel said to them sounds so 'ludicrous' as TM might say. In a (rather desperate, imo) attempt to 'sanitize' the encounter TM have put Nigel's thoughts (that TM were behaving like dirty old men) into Nigel's own mouth!

Of course, it makes no sense whatsoever for a fellow holiday-maker to have 'looked embarrassed' and 'laughingly remarked' that 'filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man'. Even if someone felt like that, they would hardly be likely to admit it to a group of strangers who would just think: 'what a perve', imo. What the hell is embarrassing about filming your own daughter? And why would it make you feel like a dirty old man unless you were actually a dirty old man?

Notice how TM have even used the precise terminology that Nigel used - when he went up to the group to remonstrate about their filming of his daughter - to convey that it was 'the way' they were filming which was making him uncomfortable. In other words, one assumes, in a covert, sneaky, somewhat 'pervy' way. TM very cleverly tar Nigel with their own brush. And in so doing make it appear as though it is Nigel who - by filming his own daughter in a certain way - 'feels like a dirty old man'.

TM are just so darn sneaky. They love putting words into other people's mouths, imo. And love throwing the dirt that belongs on them, imo, onto others - especially, one imagines, those who have seen through them. And in particular their critics (eg: Detective Amaral).

Given the early Portuguese line of questioning Russell, I think it highly likely that Nigel must have already approached police about this encounter prior to police questioning Russell, as Nigel, on hearing of the alleged 'abduction' would have had a very clear recollection of this encounter - as it was only days before - and furthermore the nature of the encounter would have been memorable. Not in a good way, either, but in a kind of 'how weird, what they hell was all that about to make me feel so uncomfortable' kind of way.

It also signifies to me that Madeleine almost definitely did not play mini-tennis with her group on Tuesday. Why on earth would TM be trying to film a stranger's child play on Thursday when they could all have filmed their own children at their sessions earlier in the week? If there could have been a photo or film of Madeleine playing mini-tennis on Tuesday I think there would have been.

The only thing that makes sense to me would be that there was a need for some (grainy, hazy - rather like all the Tapas photos in black and white that week) footage of a three year old girl playing tennis at the mini club that week that could have been passed off as being footage of Madeleine with her mini-tennis club.

TM, imo, were 'rumbled' by Nigel who would most definitely be a very important eye-witness.

I've previously linked all the relevant witness statements so won't do so again. But notice how police - both Portuguese and UK I do believe - encourage Russell to talk at very great length about this incident. Pages of it in fact. And question him about the precise terminology used. I can only presume that police, too, found this a remarkably peculiar encounter. And the 'light-hearted' banter about pedophiles which it lead onto between Nigel and members of TM - so TM say - is most certainly, imo, not the usual topic of chat among parents watching their children play or take part in activities.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.03.16 22:59

j.rob wrote: ...if you look at one of the early rogatories (translated from Portuguese) you can see that the police are very interested in Russell's account of this encounter. And they question him in such a way that he is unable to deny that it was Nigel who approached the group, and what Nigel said to them was very different indeed to Kate's account in her book and indeed to Russell's (later) accounts when he too follows the TM 'spin'...

Could you please publish here the exact quotes from the relevant witness statements that have led you to the above conclusion.

Many thanks in advance

by missbeetle 31.03.16 8:32

April28th wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes, as highlighted here. The calf mark is probably just a bruise from playing, the forearm I can't work out, it's a weird shape.

ETA - I blew the forearm area up and drew out the shape as best I could without literally inventing an image of my own - an odd shape as I said before. Almost looks like a crude star or a crude letter K?

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

Hello April28th - crumbs, that's more than just a sunburn - looks like a (cattle) brand from this angle -

- but on turning the picture 90 degrees clockwise, I can see a spooky face.

b

by MrsC 31.03.16 9:14

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] re: but on turning the picture 90 degrees clockwise, I can see a spooky face.

Are you having a laugh??

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 31.03.16 9:30

So sad to see the serious business of getting to the truth about Madeleine being turned into a joke by a few people.

by MrsC 31.03.16 9:31

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:So sad to see the serious business of getting to the truth about Madeleine being turned into a joke by a few people.

Yes, it's so unbelievably crass.

by Spacecowboy 31.03.16 9:35

J.Rob ''I think Nigel Forster is a genuine eye-witness and a real thorn in the TM side. I have written many times on here about what I think might have happened, based on the rogatory statements. I personally think that Nigel Foster (from Southampton I do believe) is an important unbiased (if such things exist in this case...) eye-witness''.

So are you suggesting that Nigel was a complete stranger to Jane, Russell and Kate, despite what Jane said about boarding the same plane as him and spoke to him during the week?

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

Report on Visualisation and Analysis of Photographs

On this date, I can inform that photographs from a CD provided by Leicestershire police were visualised and analysed, these referred to photographs taken by the F***** family during their holidays at the OC between the 28th April and 5th May 2007.

Upon analysing these photos, the result was that there was at least one photograph where some of the elements making up the group of friends of the McCann couple were visualised, nothing relevant being found for the investigation.

Portimao, 23rd May 2007.

Inspector

Ricardo Paiva

Did Nigel Foster take photographs of the McCann's and their friends? YES OR NO

Did the memory cards with 43 deleted images from an Olympus camera belong to Nigel Foster, the McCann's or their friends?

Page 542

Incident History Records

8th May 2007

Email received from Leicestershire police

Would you kindly permit an officer to visit Mrs F*****?. She has recently been on holiday to the MW complex and is in possession of video footage taken by her husband. It is understood that the footage is currently contained on their home computer. The allocated officer will need to review the footage and all footage of the complex should be downloaded onto a suitable storage disc. Mr F**** has indicated that it probably only consists of a thirty second pan of the playground area/pool area/Tapas bar. Mr and Mrs F are not technically competent to download the data. Please statement accordingly re exhibit continuity.

I have spoken to Mr F this morning and he has been advised that local officers will make contact with his wife.

If possible please send a copy to me for initial viewing in the Incident Room

Did Nigel Foster film his daughter playing Mini-Tennis on Thursday? YES OR NO

''It also signifies to me that Madeleine almost definitely did not play mini-tennis with her group on Tuesday''.

I agree, the last photo was taken on Sunday lunchtime.

''Why on earth would TM be trying to film a stranger's child play on Thursday when they could all have filmed their own children at their sessions earlier in the week''?

Madeleine died on Sunday and they needed a favour from someone they knew, after all Jane Tanner admitted that Nigel wasn't a stranger, she spoke to him during the week, her, Nigel and Russell boarded the same plane to Portugal. Why would Jane Tanner lie about that? Why did Rachel claim that Jane Tanner took the tennis ball photo on Thursday?

''I think he 'caught' member of TM (probably Russell, imo who would be very memorable as he is exceptionally tall - much taller than the other Tapas males) trying to take covert video-recorder footage of his (Nigel's) three year old daughter playing mini-tennis at her mini-tennis session on Thursday morning''

So not one, but two different people may have videoed (according to Nigel Foster) or taken a picture (according to Rachel Oldfield) of Nigel Fosters daughter on Thursday.

If Nigel Foster did say that about Russell, then it may have been a cover story if the Police found out that the tennis ball photo was his daughter.

Jane Tanner/Russell O' Brien word against Nigel Foster's

Nigel Foster - They're strangers and I'm quite shocked that they tried to take a picture or video my daughter

Jane Tanner/ Russell O' Brien - Oh hang on a minute, he's not a stranger, he travelled on the same plane as us, we spoke to him during the week and he gave us permission to take the photo.

by Guest 31.03.16 10:08

missbeetle wrote:

- but on turning the picture 90 degrees clockwise, I can see a spooky face.

b

I think it's the Virgin Mary.... or Justin Beiber... can't decide.

by **HiDeHo** 31.03.16 13:32

I cant seem to find any reference to T7 taking photos. It was Nigel Foster that was taking photos of his daughter as far as I can see...in following paragraph and in SPOILER.... (See May 4th statement below)

Russell OBrien Rogatory http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm

I recall that Jane had been having a tennis lesson also there was Kate and Rachael. We were watching some children have their lesson this was before lunch. I recall that one of the guests a guy from Southampton came over his daughter was playing tennis, he wanted to take a picture but expressed to us how uncomfortable he felt in doing so- he said something similar to feeling like a pervert or a dirty old man when taking a picture of his own child, I do not wish to implicate him. I recall that the child was of a similar age to Madeleine and Ella.

I recall that Madeleine and Ella had had a similar lesson the day before.

We agreed that in this day and age taking a photograph of your own child you shouldn’t be made to feel uncomfortable, it was a horrible coincident. I would like to stress that I do not think that this man had any involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance. I feel that it was a haunting coincidence. (See more in SPOILER)

Russell OBrien rog referring to Nigel foster:

Maybe May 4th statement explains .....

Russell O'Brien's Statement 04/05/07
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
- The deponent remembers only one episode, that for him did not have any importance, but that, given the circumstances, make him relate it. States that between the activities of tennis and others on the beach, he took notice of an individual who he only knows as NIGEL - a British individual, married, and with a daughter of 3 years whose name is Ixxx.

He had trivial conversations with him. On the day of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, in the late morning, part of the group, with their children, were next to the tennis courts when NIGEL approached him. They were filming his daughter, with a video camera, and that, questioned, the deponent states that he does not remember seeing anyone with such an apparatus. Considering the current particulars of paedophilia, they conversed and the deponent considered this perfectly normal. Nigel had commented that he felt uncomfortable in having his daughter filmed. The deponent finished by concurring with him and together they spoke about the ridiculous situation and 'the state to which the world has come'. The deponent states that he has no reason to suspect NIGEL, in any circumstances whatsoever, and that he appeared to him a normal citizen, with a normal family. He never again thought about this conversation and only reports it of all the situations of the week, he has no incident to register or relate.

Could someone confirm the translation? Who are 'they'? 'No reason to suspect Nigel' suggests Nigel was the one with the camera?

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

From Russell OBrien Rogatory (in SPOILER)

So Madeleine was not there at that point at all. And I think that’s important, particularly, because of what the man said, if Madeleine was potentially being photographed by anyone, it was absolutely clear that Madeleine and Ella were not there that day. It says ‘I recall that a guy from Southampton came up, his daughter was playing tennis, he wanted to take a picture’, erm, ‘but casual’, maybe ‘casually expressed to us how uncomfortable he felt in doing so’”.

1578 “’But casually expressed’'”
Reply “Yeah, you know, he wasn’t, he just. And it might be worth saying that, you know, he said that the, you know, something like, you know, ‘These days you feel like a pervert’ or maybe just extending that, you know, ‘You feel like a dirty old man taking a picture of your own daughter’ maybe just to make it a bit more explicit, because that’s what he said, you know, he didn’t just come up and say ‘Oh I feel like a dirty old man’, you know, sort of, you know, ‘In this’, you know, ‘The way things are these days’, erm, you know, ‘you feel like a criminal’ or ‘a dirty old man taking a photo of your own kid’”.