Re: Recap on the Tennis Balls photo

by **Jill Havern** 27.01.17 14:09

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

by NickE 27.01.17 14:17

If this photo was taken during minitennis as Kate claimed then I wonder why we can´t see any bracelet?
It should have been visible.
Nor are the tennisballs for children.
IMO: I think we can rule out the minitennis story.

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

by **Tony Bennett** 27.01.17 14:31

worriedmum wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
worriedmum wrote:''There is coherent evidence that the body of the girl shown in that photo is NOT that of Madeleine''

What evidence?
1. There is evidence (see PeterMac's recent article) that Kate McCann did NOT take the Tennis Balls Photo.

2. In the same PeterMac article, there is evidence that it may not even have been taken on Kate McCann's camera.

3. That raises the question of whether someone else took the photo on an entirely different occasion.

4. The body of the girl looks to many eyes, including mine, like that of an older girl.

5. The arm and legs of the girl look to many eyes, including mine, to be 'chunkier' than those of Madeleine.

6. The red-brown colour of the girl's arms and legs looks wholly dfferent from the pale white skin Madeleine has on the Last (Pool) Photo.

7. The girl in the photo appears to have a series of scratches, marks and bruises on her arms and legs which Madeleine does not have in the Last (Pool) Photo.

8. A number of people have suggested that possibly Madeleine's head has been photoshopped onto the body of an entirely different girl.
Tony, I think this is more opinion than 'evidence'...

I agree that there is a discrepancy over who took the photo. (Your points 1,2,3).

I agree that the body looks grown-up when compared to other photos - but is this because we were saturated with pictures of a much younger Madeleine? If you look at Madeleine's body on the playground pictures in Praia Da Luz, she does look quite broad.(Your points 4 and 5).

I do not understand why you think that body the marks on the arms and legs prove it is a different child's body. My whole point is that if (and I agree with PeterMac's analysis here) the Pool photo was taken on Sunday, why is it not possible that the marks on the arms and legs have developed SINCE Sunday? The scraped knee could be explained by the fall on the aeroplane steps. The 'sunburn' on her wrist? (your points 6, 7 and 8).

@ worriedmum It is obvious that you think that the Tennis Balls Photo - even if you concede that Kate McCann's story about it may be false - was a genuine photo taken on that holiday. And you have given your reasons.

i think it was not a genuine photo taken on that holiday and may be a composite. I have given my reasons.

We are clearly never going to agree.

@ NickE Yes indeed, the bracelet. Or rather, no bracelet. You have made yet another excellent point.

by NickE 28.01.17 10:58

Tony Bennett wrote:
worriedmum wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
worriedmum wrote:''There is coherent evidence that the body of the girl shown in that photo is NOT that of Madeleine''

What evidence?
1. There is evidence (see PeterMac's recent article) that Kate McCann did NOT take the Tennis Balls Photo.

2. In the same PeterMac article, there is evidence that it may not even have been taken on Kate McCann's camera.

3. That raises the question of whether someone else took the photo on an entirely different occasion.

4. The body of the girl looks to many eyes, including mine, like that of an older girl.

5. The arm and legs of the girl look to many eyes, including mine, to be 'chunkier' than those of Madeleine.

6. The red-brown colour of the girl's arms and legs looks wholly dfferent from the pale white skin Madeleine has on the Last (Pool) Photo.

7. The girl in the photo appears to have a series of scratches, marks and bruises on her arms and legs which Madeleine does not have in the Last (Pool) Photo.

8. A number of people have suggested that possibly Madeleine's head has been photoshopped onto the body of an entirely different girl.
Tony, I think this is more opinion than 'evidence'...

I agree that there is a discrepancy over who took the photo. (Your points 1,2,3).

I agree that the body looks grown-up when compared to other photos - but is this because we were saturated with pictures of a much younger Madeleine? If you look at Madeleine's body on the playground pictures in Praia Da Luz, she does look quite broad.(Your points 4 and 5).

I do not understand why you think that body the marks on the arms and legs prove it is a different child's body. My whole point is that if (and I agree with PeterMac's analysis here) the Pool photo was taken on Sunday, why is it not possible that the marks on the arms and legs have developed SINCE Sunday? The scraped knee could be explained by the fall on the aeroplane steps. The 'sunburn' on her wrist? (your points 6, 7 and 8).
@ worriedmum It is obvious that you think that the Tennis Balls Photo - even if you concede that Kate McCann's story about it may be false - was a genuine photo taken on that holiday. And you have given your reasons.

i think it was not a genuine photo taken on that holiday and may be a composite. I have given my reasons.

We are clearly never going to agree.

@ NickE Yes indeed, the bracelet. Or rather, no bracelet. You have made yet another excellent point.

Thank you Tony.

Then we have the second claim:
When British media was promoting BBC Crimewatch "Madeleine special" they clamied that Madeleine was picking up balls when Kate & Gerry played Tennis:

"The footage features a three-year-old girl as Madeleine. She is shown collecting tennis balls for her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, as they played on a tennis court.
It recreates one of the last photographs taken before Madeleine vanished from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in the Algarve in May 2007 when she was three."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This is snipped from the files, Tennis coach Georgina 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."
Okay,let´s combo:

*Madeleine was still around on Sunday morning.(and Gerry & Kate were playing Tennis)
*Madeleine was not signed at Creche when this photo was taken.(no bracelet)
*British media clamied she was picking up balls when her both parents were playing.(Shouldn´t TM told the media that this claim was wrong?)
*HideHo´s theory about the wet parts on the court. (Dew during the night)
*Lack of sunlight (Early in the morning)

If this photo is genuine there is a very good chance it was taken early Sunday morning.

by worriedmum 28.01.17 11:14

That's interesting, NickE. However, wouldn't Madeleine's arms look discoloured on the pool photo if the premise is that this was taken after the tennis photo? How long do bruises take to develop? And if this was taken early morning, where are the twins?

by JRP 28.01.17 11:26

The bruised arm facing us in the Tennis Balls photo isn't visible in the Pool Photo. Neither are Madeleine's legs.

The tennis ball photo has had it's contrast altered, possibly to make Madeleine appear darker than she really was.

by joyce1938 28.01.17 11:38

I think there was another story around t,hat maddie also other girls were p icking up balls ,and it was after adults had been playing ? Does anyone recall that it could have been one evening .? also the photo looked as if it was taken from a height ? just asking joyce1938

by NickE 28.01.17 12:18

worriedmum wrote:That's interesting, NickE. However, wouldn't Madeleine's arms look discoloured on the pool photo if the premise is that this was taken after the tennis photo? How long do bruises take to develop? And if this was taken early morning, where are the twins?

That's another mystery.
Can't find any creche sheet from the twins jellyfish group from Sunday AM.
And there were nannies from MBM's group that stated that the Kids club were closed on Sundays.
Carpenter said to the Police that a lot of people was present at Sunday morning when they had the Tennis meeting.
Even if MBM was at Creche on Sunday she should have been present around the court,early Sunday morning because it look's like the lessons started at 9am acc to booking sheets,the meeting should have been before this.
Maybe the Twins and Madeleine and the other children were entertained by somebody from the Tapas gang around the playground area? during this time.

by Verdi 28.01.17 13:22

I don't think there can be much doubt that this 'tennis ball' photograph was designed to place a living Madeleine at the Ocean Club at sometime during the holiday week, after Saturday/Sunday - why the conflicting stories I can't hazard a guess other than a further attempt to confuse. However, the saga does appear to be somehow entangled with the complimentary story of the encounter with the man from Hampshire - this is Rachael Oldfield's rogatory version of the 'tennis ball' photograph..

..erm and then I think it must have been at about ten thirty, Madeleine and Ella and their sort of group came to have a tennis lesson as part of their creche activities, erm and Kate didn't have her camera and Jane was there then as well and Jane took some photos of both Madeleine and Ella, thats one, that poster of Madeleine with the tennis b*lls, that sort of pictures'.

1578 'That was taken on the''

Reply 'Yeah that was that morning'.

1578 'Thursday''

Reply 'Yeah, erm so we sort of watched them have their tennis lesson, erm and there were a few other parents there, sort of taking photos and that sort of thing....
----------

Then there is Russell O'Brian's rogatory account of the Hampshire man on the morning of Thursday 3rd May (see Foster photographs!)..

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.
----------

Nothing was ever said by this group without reason so why I ask, was this story necessary? If nothing else, it might explain why the Fosters volunteered their photographic footage on return to the UK.

On a different note, Rachael Oldfield said, I quote ".... erm and there were a few other parents there, sort of taking photos and that sort of thing...."

I wonder if any of these other parents volunteered their photographs to assist the investigation, as requested by Jim Gamble of the CEOP !!! Just think how productive photographic evidence of Madeleine being at a specific place and specific time, would have been to the investigation. If any photographs were handed over by these other parents, they don't appear to have reached the official Portuguese investigation otherwise there would be mention somewhere other than the Tapas groups muddled recollections. Or maybe they just err.. sort of did it err..

by Verdi 28.01.17 15:19

Apropos of the man from Southampton allegedly being awkward taking photographs of his own child. According to Russell O'Brien's rogatory statement, the man's child was playing tennis and was around the same age as Madeleine and Ella. If, as stated by Rachael Oldfield, 'Madeleine and Ella and their sort of group came to have a tennis lesson as part of their creche activities' - why the Fosters daughter wasn't booked in at the creche during that day..

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

Nor can I see an entry in the name of Foster on any day of the week in the Lobster Club register. Possibly his child was being supervised by another care worker - possibly the incident never happened, I can't recall it being verified by the Foster father!

by Verdi 28.01.17 15:48

JRP wrote:The bruised arm facing us in the Tennis Balls photo isn't visible in the Pool Photo. Neither are Madeleine's legs.

The tennis ball photo has had it's contrast altered, possibly to make Madeleine appear darker than she really was.

Frankly, this particular photograph has been churned out so many times, I doubt a true copy is available for forensic analysis. This is the copy contained in the PJ files which was circulated by email by family friend Pat Perkins on 7th May 2007..

3-Processos Vol XIII Pages 3402 - 3404

13VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3401

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

13VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3402

13VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3403

13VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3404

Email

Sent May 7th 2007. 12.29 PM

Subject: Madeleine, age 3, you can help find her for her Mummy and Daddy

On behalf of Kate and Gerry McCann and all the family, please help us find Madeleine.

Madeleine, age 3 was abducted from her bed in the family holiday apartment,
P da L Algarve, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May.

Police and all of Portugal are trying to find her. The Portuguese people, holidaymakers and expats have been a great support to the family and continue their efforts.

You too can help. Please circulate this plea to publicise Madeleine's photo and ask for information, no matter how small to be passed on to the authorities.

Whether you are in the UK, Portugal, Europe or beyond, please forward to all your family, friends, colleagues and business associates.

Someone out there will have some information that will lead to Maddy's return.

The internet can be a powerful tool in finding Maddy, who is so loved and missed by us all.

Let's use it positively.

Please pray for Madeleine and all the family at this devastating time.

We need your help. We know you won't let Maddy down.

God bless.

Pat Perkins
(Family friend)

This is the closest to a well preserved copy I can find - at least it looks a bit more authentic than some I've seen..

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

Whatever, on thing's for certain, this images was not taken whist Madeleine was playing mini-tennis. Apart from the balls, Madeleine is wearing sandals - who would send a threee year old child onto a tennis court for a lesson wearing sandals? I don't class Kate McCann as a snappy dresser but even she wouldn't be so negligent - surely?

by Verdi 28.01.17 15:55

Quick samples for comparison..

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

See my point?

by Doug D 28.01.17 17:23

Nothing about bracelets in Cat Baker’s May 2007 statement and I don’t remember anyone else mentioning them.

They are introduced in her rog. on 18^th April 2008:

‘I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, in the Minis Club. They brought the children and as it was their first day of holidays the normal procedure was that they were allocated a childcare worker. I had previously written the children's bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information.’

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

We don’t know, but logically, if they were even used they would have been the semi-permanent ones that most kids would keep on as a badge of honour all week. It would be pointless having something that the kids could just slip on & off at will.

I don’t believe that any bracelets are evident in any of the kid’s photos, even the slightly better ‘Payne black & white’ ones, so maybe this is more sloppy work on behalf of the kid’s clubs, alongside the register sheets.

With so few kids booked in that week, did they actually bother?

As for the tennis balls photo, you can’t see her left wrist, so she could have had one on.

(In the 'last photo', again the kids wrists aren't shown, although you just about catch MM's other wrist to that in the tennis photo. If bracelets were confirmed as being used from that very first creche introductory meeting on the Sunday morning, it would help to date that photo definitively)

This is something that the PJ could very easily have checked on, but nothing to see in the files about them.

by JRP 28.01.17 17:42

Verdi wrote:Quick samples for comparison..

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

See my point?

The very short answer to your question is... yep.

by NickE 28.01.17 18:37

Doug D wrote:Nothing about bracelets in Cat Baker’s May 2007 statement and I don’t remember anyone else mentioning them.

They are introduced in her rog. on 18^th April 2008:

‘I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, in the Minis Club. They brought the children and as it was their first day of holidays the normal procedure was that they were allocated a childcare worker. I had previously written the children's bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information.’

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

We don’t know, but logically, if they were even used they would have been the semi-permanent ones that most kids would keep on as a badge of honour all week. It would be pointless having something that the kids could just slip on & off at will.

I don’t believe that any bracelets are evident in any of the kid’s photos, even the slightly better ‘Payne black & white’ ones, so maybe this is more sloppy work on behalf of the kid’s clubs, alongside the register sheets.

With so few kids booked in that week, did they actually bother?

As for the tennis balls photo, you can’t see her left wrist, so she could have had one on.

(In the 'last photo', again the kids wrists aren't shown, although you just about catch MM's other wrist to that in the tennis photo. If bracelets were confirmed as being used from that very first creche introductory meeting on the Sunday morning, it would help to date that photo definitively)

This is something that the PJ could very easily have checked on, but nothing to see in the files about them.

The bracelets it's a very important thing, it's about safe and security for the children and it's a routine and there for we have to assume that bracelets were used.
I have been with my kids many times in Greece,Spain and Thailand and they have always put a bracelet on them before every kids club session.
Minitennis was a part of the creche activities and there should be bracelet on her wrist,they are pretty wide because of all info about to be fit.
She is keeping one hand over the other hand,the bracelet would have been visible and that's my conviction.

by Nina 28.01.17 20:07

NickE wrote:
Doug D wrote:Nothing about bracelets in Cat Baker’s May 2007 statement and I don’t remember anyone else mentioning them.

They are introduced in her rog. on 18^th April 2008:

‘I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, in the Minis Club. They brought the children and as it was their first day of holidays the normal procedure was that they were allocated a childcare worker. I had previously written the children's bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information.’

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

We don’t know, but logically, if they were even used they would have been the semi-permanent ones that most kids would keep on as a badge of honour all week. It would be pointless having something that the kids could just slip on & off at will.

I don’t believe that any bracelets are evident in any of the kid’s photos, even the slightly better ‘Payne black & white’ ones, so maybe this is more sloppy work on behalf of the kid’s clubs, alongside the register sheets.

With so few kids booked in that week, did they actually bother?

As for the tennis balls photo, you can’t see her left wrist, so she could have had one on.

(In the 'last photo', again the kids wrists aren't shown, although you just about catch MM's other wrist to that in the tennis photo. If bracelets were confirmed as being used from that very first creche introductory meeting on the Sunday morning, it would help to date that photo definitively)

This is something that the PJ could very easily have checked on, but nothing to see in the files about them.
The bracelets it's a very important thing, it's about safe and security for the children and it's a routine and there for we have to assume that bracelets were used.
I have been with my kids many times in Greece,Spain and Thailand and they have always put a bracelet on them before every kids club session.
Minitennis was a part of the creche activities and there should be bracelet on her wrist,they are pretty wide because of all info about to be fit.
She is keeping one hand over the other hand,the bracelet would have been visible and that's my conviction.

name, allergies and relevant information
This leads me to believe that these bracelets would be such that there would be these sections already printed and that each section would have to be filled in. They are for security,in case of an accident/injury or worse the person in charge of the child at that time would have the info there.
It is unlikely that they would do this every day so something like the hospital wrist bands would be used as they are waterproof.
Other than this brief mention,no one else mentions wrist bands and the writing.

by worriedmum 28.01.17 20:21

o

Verdi wrote:Quick samples for comparison..

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

See my point?

Yes, thank you Verdi. And Joyce, the tennis court is at a lower level than the pool /play area in the holiday complex.
Both these phtographs show the strangely white hand. I am interested in what other posters think may be the reason..

by NickE 28.01.17 22:33

Nina wrote:
NickE wrote:
Doug D wrote:Nothing about bracelets in Cat Baker’s May 2007 statement and I don’t remember anyone else mentioning them.

They are introduced in her rog. on 18^th April 2008:

‘I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, in the Minis Club. They brought the children and as it was their first day of holidays the normal procedure was that they were allocated a childcare worker. I had previously written the children's bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information.’

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

We don’t know, but logically, if they were even used they would have been the semi-permanent ones that most kids would keep on as a badge of honour all week. It would be pointless having something that the kids could just slip on & off at will.

I don’t believe that any bracelets are evident in any of the kid’s photos, even the slightly better ‘Payne black & white’ ones, so maybe this is more sloppy work on behalf of the kid’s clubs, alongside the register sheets.

With so few kids booked in that week, did they actually bother?

As for the tennis balls photo, you can’t see her left wrist, so she could have had one on.

(In the 'last photo', again the kids wrists aren't shown, although you just about catch MM's other wrist to that in the tennis photo. If bracelets were confirmed as being used from that very first creche introductory meeting on the Sunday morning, it would help to date that photo definitively)

This is something that the PJ could very easily have checked on, but nothing to see in the files about them.
The bracelets it's a very important thing, it's about safe and security for the children and it's a routine and there for we have to assume that bracelets were used.
I have been with my kids many times in Greece,Spain and Thailand and they have always put a bracelet on them before every kids club session.
Minitennis was a part of the creche activities and there should be bracelet on her wrist,they are pretty wide because of all info about to be fit.
She is keeping one hand over the other hand,the bracelet would have been visible and that's my conviction.
name, allergies and relevant information
This leads me to believe that these bracelets would be such that there would be these sections already printed and that each section would have to be filled in. They are for security,in case of an accident/injury or worse the person in charge of the child at that time would have the info there.
It is unlikely that they would do this every day so something like the hospital wrist bands would be used as they are waterproof.
Other than this brief mention,no one else mentions wrist bands and the writing.

Yes,the bracelets is this kind of size.
I took this photo 10 minutes ago of my youngest son(4yo) arm(sleeping) still wearing it since our trip to Tenerife last week.
This kind of bracelets have been standard since (I know) my oldest boy were on Kids clubs and it look´s like the same size that Mark Warner using.
As you all can see it take a large part of a 4yo child´s wrist and would been visible on the Tennis photo IF it was taken during Minitennis.
Note: My son is 4 yo and one week and he is big for his age, when I compare his hand and fingers with the girl in the tennis photo I DOUBT very much that this girl is 4 yo.

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

by JRP 28.01.17 22:58

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
PeterMac's e-book Chapter 22: Tennis Balls Photo

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

Tennis Balls Photo

My interest in this particular image was rekindled after the recent newspaper article by Tracey Kandohla, a vehement and uncritical McCann supporter and personal friend of Kate, who referred to the Tennis Balls Photo (TBP) where she says:
“Pictures include the iconic last known image of Maddie in pink sunhat and clutching tennis balls while on holiday “ [1]

Having researched it further, some are now tending towards the conclusion that it could indeed be the ‘last photo’ of Madeleine Beth McCann, taken some hours after the Pool photo.

* * * *

Is there anything we can deduce from what we observe when we examine this image?

There are two versions in circulation. [2]

This one,

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

which has clearly been cropped from this one

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

The larger one shows up with an aspect ratio of 800 x 1067 which gives 1.33, or 0.75
depending which way we calculate it.

This is normal for most cameras.
The Canon PowerShot A620 for example uses 3072 x 2304 = 0.75 / 1.33
and the Olympus C-50 similarly uses 2560 x 1920 = 0.75 / 1.33

But immediately we note that most cameras take images in ‘landscape’ format, that is to say the photo is wider than it is high. 4 units wide by 3 units high.

We sometimes observe keen photographers physically turning the camera through 90º, to achieve the ‘Portrait’ format, but in the days of high resolution digital images it is more common simply to crop the middle out and save it separately.

So has the larger of these images itself been cropped from a landscape format image?

If so the original must have looked like this:

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

The "Last Photo" (Pool Photo) when viewing the high resolution gestalt version measures 3072 x 2304 pixels
If the Pool Photo is resized to make the shorter edge 800 pixels, the longer edge automatically becomes 1067 pixels.
So a 3072 x 2304 pixel image fits the Canon A620 spec and when reduced it becomes 1067 x 800 pixels

The Tennis Balls photo has already been reduced, and measures 1067 x 800 pixels

The Olympus C-50 has an image resolution of 2560 x 1920 pixels
If the shorter length was reduced to 800 pixels, the longer edge would be 1067 which doesn't match the measurements of the Tennis Balls photo.

I think, that the Tennis Balls photo was taken on the Canon A620, but it was taken in a portrait orientation, not cropped from a landscape shot as shown above.

I say "think" because there is a way of making a photo any size you want.
You simply open a Canon Image in Photoshop and lay an Olympus image over the top and stretch it to fit... then reduce it to 1067 x 800 an hey presto an Olympus size image becomes Canon size.

Is there evidence that this has been done?
Well... possibly.
The Tennis Balls photo is very dark in the top left corner. It is possible that it's a shadow from a tree or... something. But, it could also be an affect called vignetting.
Vignetting is an effect common to cheapish cameras, where the edges of the image are darker than the centre.
If this is vignetting, then it would be visible in all corners of the image and along the edges, leaving the centre looking like a brighter egg shape.
In this image, only the top left corner is dark, so the image could have been resized to make us believe it's from a Canon, and in doing so, the full vignette from the edges and other 3 corners are missing.

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

by NickE 29.01.17 12:10

Here is my youngest boy,he turned into 4 years old a week ago and he is 107cm.
Madeleine was said to be 90cm,that´s a difference of 17cm

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

by Doug D 29.01.17 14:38

Verdi @ 15.19 yesterday.

Based on the booking sheets:

1 x Mini Club for Miss E Foster (3), so presumably a ‘young’ 3, rather than the ‘nearly 4’ MM who was in the ‘toddlers’ Lobster grouping.

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

Still no sign on the Jellyfish/Starfish sheets though, so may have been in another group.

by worriedmum 29.01.17 20:38

When Madeleine was declared missing, was she ever descibed as wearing the Kid's Club bracelet?

by Verdi 29.01.17 21:04

Doug D wrote:Verdi @ 15.19 yesterday.

Based on the booking sheets:

1 x Mini Club for Miss E Foster (3), so presumably a ‘young’ 3, rather than the ‘nearly 4’ MM who was in the ‘toddlers’ Lobster grouping.

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

Still no sign on the Jellyfish/Starfish sheets though, so may have been in another group.

The booking sheet, above 1 x Mini Club for Miss E Foster, also states..

'No childcare required although offered'

by Verdi 29.01.17 23:40

NickE wrote:Here is my youngest boy,he turned into 4 years old a week ago and he is 107cm.
Madeleine was said to be 90cm,that´s a difference of 17cm

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

What does this signify may I ask?

by NickE 30.01.17 11:27

Verdi wrote:
NickE wrote:Here is my youngest boy,he turned into 4 years old a week ago and he is 107cm.
Madeleine was said to be 90cm,that´s a difference of 17cm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
What does this signify may I ask?

it has been discussed frequently about the girl's body size in this photo.
MBM was only 90cm high,the question is,does this size of this girls hand fit a body that is only 90cm high?