Re: Paul Grover - photographer to the stars

by jd 27.10.11 9:01

I don't believe for one moment granny mccann took those photos....total garbage. They are professionally shot photos with expensive camera's, this is just another in a long list of lies

And you never put your name to photos unless they are yours and you are protecting them against copyright

by **tigger** 27.10.11 9:15

jd wrote:
Willo wrote:I also emailed Mr Grover through his business website last night asking why, where and for whom these photos were taken and were they photoshopped and this morning had five replies from an iphone.

1/ To answer your questions I Sid not photograph Madeleine I copies the photos from her grandmothers album when she went missing

2/ Also the the pics are not Lolita pics they are family pics taken by members of the family if you think they are Lolita pics your problem

3/ And no they are not altered in phot shop

4/ I kind of get fed up with people thinking that I take pics of young girls there was nothing sinister they are not my pictures! So let that be the end of it

5/ Hello Willo, Not sure what you are implying but I did not have ever photographed Madeleine McCann I copied her grandmothers phot album I am not sure why people (you are not the first) think they are "Lolita" style pics I never thought that when I saw them if you have a problem with the style of the photos have a word with the family because THEY ARE NOT MINE!

So the photos were taken by a family member!!! Mr.Grover it seems has become innocently involved. Another outsider dragged into the mire.

Well done Willo. Theses answers are really weird (just like everything else in this case).....But they do beg the question....why is your name on the photos then????? (Paul Grover)

Daisy I totally agree with everything you say

Hi Willo, are those your typos or are they exactly what Grover wrote? Because his grammar doesn't even cover basic English. All five answers are also very defensive! Also weird. Many pics are photoshopped and we haven't even touched on the make-up.
If a professional photographer cannot see that, I'm a little suspicious. I am also a little suspicious about Granny's family album. Personally, I don't think they saw her that often. Granny was also the one who said she was a 'screamer'.
The photograph on the floor says: 'come and get me' - I'm not making this up, if a woman lies like this in front of a man it's a clear signal. Try and lie in that pose, you'll see what I mean.

by russiandoll 27.10.11 9:25

the responses do seem rather defensive and oddly worded.
I am ignorant of how media operate in these circumstances, I understand why the photos were given to the media, but am unsure why they went to a photographer rather than straight to a journalist for publication if they were straightforward family photographs for a newspaper to publish. The photos do appear to have a professional look about them, the way they are staged and lit. I thought the moment they were released that Maddie had not been spontaneously caught in a natural moment [ go fetch the camera quickly this will be a great photo] , rather the camera and set up was prepared and Maddie was told to pose. The bath/ made to look like a pool shot, the ice cream shot, the skirting board photo.......are clearly of a child posing. Unless she was so precocious that she knew how and liked to pose in an adult way, she followed instructions [ whichever, both very disturbing and raising big red flags].

by jd 27.10.11 9:52

russiandoll wrote:the responses do seem rather defensive and oddly worded.
I am ignorant of how media operate in these circumstances, I understand why the photos were given to the media, but am unsure why they went to a photographer rather than straight to a journalist for publication if they were straightforward family photographs for a newspaper to publish. The photos do appear to have a professional look about them, the way they are staged and lit. I thought the moment they were released that Maddie had not been spontaneously caught in a natural moment [ go fetch the camera quickly this will be a great photo] , rather the camera and set up was prepared and Maddie was told to pose. The bath/ made to look like a pool shot, the ice cream shot, the skirting board photo.......are clearly of a child posing. Unless she was so precocious that she knew how and liked to pose in an adult way, she followed instructions [ whichever, both very disturbing and raising big red flags].

I agree Russian Doll, its obvious. But why do you think these particular photos were given to the media?...this is one I cannot understand

by Xavier 27.10.11 10:06

tigger wrote:
jd wrote:
Willo wrote:I also emailed Mr Grover through his business website last night asking why, where and for whom these photos were taken and were they photoshopped and this morning had five replies from an iphone.

1/ To answer your questions I Sid not photograph Madeleine I copies the photos from her grandmothers album when she went missing

2/ Also the the pics are not Lolita pics they are family pics taken by members of the family if you think they are Lolita pics your problem

3/ And no they are not altered in phot shop

4/ I kind of get fed up with people thinking that I take pics of young girls there was nothing sinister they are not my pictures! So let that be the end of it

5/ Hello Willo, Not sure what you are implying but I did not have ever photographed Madeleine McCann I copied her grandmothers phot album I am not sure why people (you are not the first) think they are "Lolita" style pics I never thought that when I saw them if you have a problem with the style of the photos have a word with the family because THEY ARE NOT MINE!

So the photos were taken by a family member!!! Mr.Grover it seems has become innocently involved. Another outsider dragged into the mire.

Well done Willo. Theses answers are really weird (just like everything else in this case).....But they do beg the question....why is your name on the photos then????? (Paul Grover)

Daisy I totally agree with everything you say

Hi Willo, are those your typos or are they exactly what Grover wrote? Because his grammar doesn't even cover basic English. All five answers are also very defensive! Also weird. Many pics are photoshopped and we haven't even touched on the make-up.
If a professional photographer cannot see that, I'm a little suspicious. I am also a little suspicious about Granny's family album. Personally, I don't think they saw her that often. Granny was also the one who said she was a 'screamer'.
The photograph on the floor says: 'come and get me' - I'm not making this up, if a woman lies like this in front of a man it's a clear signal. Try and lie in that pose, you'll see what I mean.

I cannot believe what I am reading on this thread. I thnk this forum does some good work, and in a good cause. BUt this thread is very disturbing.

The pictures "provocative"? - (Penguin pocket dictionary definition 2 - "sexually stimulating").

"come and get me"? Possibly. But you seem to be taking this a sexual sense?

"a clear signal"? For gods sake. This is a THREE YEAR OLD CHILD.

Tigger - do you have chidren? Have you played with them? To be frank words fail me - this is ghastly.

And no, I am not naive. All of these "adults" poring over pictures of a three year old child and seeing "provocative" make my blood run cold. Take a good look at yourselves.

I will no doubt be accused of "trolling" or some such. So be it. Someone has to say something.

by jd 27.10.11 10:16

Xavier wrote:
I cannot believe what I am reading on this thread. I thnk this forum does some good work, and in a good cause. BUt this thread is very disturbing.

The pictures "provocative"? - (Penguin pocket dictionary definition 2 - "sexually stimulating").

"come and get me"? Possibly. But you seem to be taking this a sexual sense?

"a clear signal"? For gods sake. This is a THREE YEAR OLD CHILD.

Tigger - do you have chidren? Have you played with them? To be frank words fail me - this is ghastly.

And no, I am not naive. All of these "adults" poring over pictures of a three year old child and seeing "provocative" make my blood run cold. Take a good look at yourselves.

I will no doubt be accused of "trolling" or some such. So be it. Someone has to say something.

Im sorry you are finding this thread disturbing, it is disturbing but needs to be discussed as these pictures very clearly show sexual tones. And remember we are not the ones who took them or released them, the Mccanns did

by russiandoll 27.10.11 11:15

I have just written a long and thoughtful post on this topic but instead of getting the usual message when I hit send that another member was posting and I would need to wait a few seconds to post my message, I didnt get that, hit send ad damn it, my message has vanished , how frustrating.

I can understand your point of view, and said in my message that researching this labyrinthine case has taken me to places I would have preferred not to go. It has to be said that it is very bizarre for a couple who stated almost from the get-go that their beloved child had been abducted by a paedophile [ I was on holiday, first heard missing from a hotel room, then from a holiday apartment, then abducted , then feared by a paedophile].......to have released to remember this child's 6th birthday, photos in which she looks posed not natural. And too grown up.
The word paedophilia was put in the public domain by the couple themselves. I wondered if they used this to further their agenda after hearing the rumours post- abduction of paedophiles in Algarve family resorts. But the photos having been released after the Gaspar statements which AFAIK have never been refuted or the scenario explained by DP or GMcC are very unsettling.
I think the McCanns like to muddy the waters for their own ends, but to knowingly release such photos was ill advised and stupid at best and at worst disgusting and suspicious. Every action by any person has a motive, why release posed photos where she looks posed and inappropriately flirtatious instead of ones where she is caught at a spontaneous lovely moment? when you fear she is with paedophiles and these photos show her looking flirtatious?
I always start from giving the pair the benefit of the doubt so I end up hopefully with a fair opinion, even starting from a point that these were family photos where make up had been applied in a well motivated wish to have Maddie look her best, I end up bewildered and asking more questions.[ I think Maddie veered from looking beautiful to looking truly not well in some photos to the point her face looked distinctly unusual and so maybe the parents idea was to have as many photos of her looking lovely, wrong to make her face up but no bad intent]
but is it reasonable, having these private photos which might be deemed inappropriate under the circumstances, to put them rather than others into the public domain? Would you not look at them in the privacy of your home in the family album and see them in a new light and maybe want them out of your own sight given how they might appeal to a paedophile?
It is possible that Maddie was lying on the floor playing near the skirting when that photo was taken,and could have been on her back leaning on her elbows and just at that moment a camera was near for a photo. It looks a rather uncomfortable position and one I doubt a child this age would hold for the time taken to grab a camera. So I believe she has been asked to hold the position a bit longer so a photo could be taken. It is a pose seen mainly from adult females, flirty if not sexy or provocative, still inappropriate for a child. And weird to the max to want to see that let alone publicise it to remember the birthday of a missing child.

To sum up, even if the photos were innocent, given the alleged reason for the abduction, why publish this type of photo, which would imo be very appealing to the kind of person they allege their daughter is with?

I am not implying a sinister background to these photos, but the release of them does raise questions, do you not agree?
what were they trying to achieve? they are either naive or cunning, my wish is to conclude which and there is little evidence of naivety in most of their actions and words.
so I am left with more questions about why and what about these photos.

by Guest 27.10.11 11:27

For a bit of light relief here's a link to some Rex Features photos of Kate and Gerry on 30th April this year in what I call "Hello magazine" mode.

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

These particular photos continue on page 4 and there's more than 20 pages of other ones.

by Vanya 27.10.11 11:35

Rex Features are obviously commissioned to follow the People's child neglectors around.

I wonder if they took this picture of the People's child neglectors acting like Charles and Diana? titter

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

by Guest 27.10.11 12:01

Vanya: I've skimmed through all 24 pages (it was a dirty job but someone had to do it) and that particular photo doesn't appear to be from Rex Features.

by Xavier 27.10.11 12:09

russiandoll wrote:I have just written a long and thoughtful post on this topic but instead of getting the usual message when I hit send that another member was posting and I would need to wait a few seconds to post my message, I didnt get that, hit send ad damn it, my message has vanished , how frustrating.

I can understand your point of view, and said in my message that researching this labyrinthine case has taken me to places I would have preferred not to go. It has to be said that it is very bizarre for a couple who stated almost from the get-go that their beloved child had been abducted by a paedophile [ I was on holiday, first heard missing from a hotel room, then from a holiday apartment, then abducted , then feared by a paedophile].......to have released to remember this child's 6th birthday, photos in which she looks posed not natural. And too grown up.
The word paedophilia was put in the public domain by the couple themselves. I wondered if they used this to further their agenda after hearing the rumours post- abduction of paedophiles in Algarve family resorts. But the photos having been released after the Gaspar statements which AFAIK have never been refuted or the scenario explained by DP or GMcC are very unsettling.
I think the McCanns like to muddy the waters for their own ends, but to knowingly release such photos was ill advised and stupid at best and at worst disgusting and suspicious. Every action by any person has a motive, why release posed photos where she looks posed and inappropriately flirtatious instead of ones where she is caught at a spontaneous lovely moment? when you fear she is with paedophiles and these photos show her looking flirtatious?
I always start from giving the pair the benefit of the doubt so I end up hopefully with a fair opinion, even starting from a point that these were family photos where make up had been applied in a well motivated wish to have Maddie look her best, I end up bewildered and asking more questions.[ I think Maddie veered from looking beautiful to looking truly not well in some photos to the point her face looked distinctly unusual and so maybe the parents idea was to have as many photos of her looking lovely, wrong to make her face up but no bad intent]
but is it reasonable, having these private photos which might be deemed inappropriate under the circumstances, to put them rather than others into the public domain? Would you not look at them in the privacy of your home in the family album and see them in a new light and maybe want them out of your own sight given how they might appeal to a paedophile?
It is possible that Maddie was lying on the floor playing near the skirting when that photo was taken,and could have been on her back leaning on her elbows and just at that moment a camera was near for a photo. It looks a rather uncomfortable position and one I doubt a child this age would hold for the time taken to grab a camera. So I believe she has been asked to hold the position a bit longer so a photo could be taken. It is a pose seen mainly from adult females, flirty if not sexy or provocative, still inappropriate for a child. And weird to the max to want to see that let alone publicise it to remember the birthday of a missing child.

To sum up, even if the photos were innocent, given the alleged reason for the abduction, why publish this type of photo, which would imo be very appealing to the kind of person they allege their daughter is with?

I am not implying a sinister background to these photos, but the release of them does raise questions, do you not agree?
what were they trying to achieve? they are either naive or cunning, my wish is to conclude which and there is little evidence of naivety in most of their actions and words.
so I am left with more questions about why and what about these photos.

Thank you for your response RussianDoll. I am sorry to say I cannot agree. Looking at those pictures I see an ordinary little girl doing what little girls do. Certainly not "provocative" - that is an entirely wrong interpretation.

Another comment of this thread is quite unbelievable. "The photograph on the floor says: 'come and get me' - I'm not making this up, if a woman lies like this in front of a man it's a clear signal. Try and lie in that pose, you'll see what I mean". - But this is NOT an adult woman - it is a three year old girl. To be frank, if that poster cannot tell the difference........!?!

A brief story may illustrate the point I am attempting to make.

Psychiatrist (drawing a square on a piece of paper) "what do you see"?

Patient: "I see a naked woman"

Psychiatrist (drawing a triangle on another piece of paper) "what do you see?"

Patient: "I see the woman lying down with her legs apart"

Psychiatrist (drawing a circle) "what do you see now"

Patient: "I see her making love with a man"

Psychiatrist "My diagnosis is that you are a sex maniac"

Patient: "ME a sex maniac? Look who is drawing all the dirty pictures."

Some of the coments on this thread do this whole forum a great disservice. Any visitors reading them might get a rather different impression of this forum than that which is intended, and that would be a shame.

by happychick 27.10.11 12:19

Xavier wrote:Some of the coments on this thread do this whole forum a great disservice. Any visitors reading them might get a rather different impression of this forum than that which is intended, and that would be a shame.

And that's what forum disruptors do. If they can't damage a forum with tanties and flounces then they will do it by posting comments like that knowing full well that Carter Ruck watch this forum.

by juliet 27.10.11 13:06

Well done to Willo for getting answers from Paul Grover, explaining his involvement with the photos.

Funny that he accepted "ownership" of them, when the one with the cloud background was clearly from someone else's studio (as now seems clear) and the others are so questionable. Has he made money every time the photos are publiched, even though they aren't his?

People always pop up to claim the complete innocence of photos of 3 year old Madeleine in expertly-applied make-up, in bath or floor poses. These people don't even try to explain why the parents would put her in lipstick and eyeliner so often before arranging photos, claiming it is normal family behaviour. But those of us with our own families know it just isn't normal, by any standards.

by happychick 27.10.11 13:20

happychick wrote:
Xavier wrote:Some of the coments on this thread do this whole forum a great disservice. Any visitors reading them might get a rather different impression of this forum than that which is intended, and that would be a shame.

And that's what forum disruptors do. If they can't damage a forum with tanties and flounces then they will do it by posting comments like that knowing full well that Carter Ruck watch this forum.

It's interesting to see who's online on the pro sites and how comments are left here then copied over there very quickly so they can say we've got grubby minds and screengrabs are whisked off to Carter Ruck.

But lets not forget they're only doing it for a wind up because they've got nothing better to do. winkwink

by HotlipsHealy 27.10.11 13:32

And let's not forget that these are the same people who don't see anything wrong with these photo's of Madeleine in make up and they don't see anything wrong in what David Payne said to her dad and they don't see anything wrong with leaving the kids, or not bothering to search and they don't see anything wrong in the dog's alerts either. All perfectly innocent.

by jd 27.10.11 13:33

Xavier wrote:
Some of the coments on this thread do this whole forum a great disservice. Any visitors reading them might get a rather different impression of this forum than that which is intended, and that would be a shame.

Though you are entitled to your own opinion, don't you think your comment is way OTT and quite disruptive. You can't go around saying things like this because 'you' do not see what 95% of everyone does. If nobody had a difference of opinion then what is a point of a discussion forum? Looking at your previous posts on this forum, you have a track record of posting disruptive comments at any given opportunity which clearly suggests you have your own agenda going on here. As you said in your own words "Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion"....

by happychick 27.10.11 13:38

But the fact that they are doing this for a wind up because they've got nothing better to do means that TB might lose his house.

And they find that very funny.

by jd 27.10.11 13:40

happychick wrote:But the fact that they are doing this for a wind up because they've got nothing better to do means that TB might lose his house.

And they find that very funny.

We live in a society that has sick minded people living in it. These creatures cannot comprehend real life and what it entails

by juliet 27.10.11 13:47

Re Paul Grover, I wonder if he has taken over copyright of the various pictures which now bear his name?

f so he must have made a mint from the countless times they have been reproduced. Surely the McCanns wouldn't let that sort of money slip away?

by **tigger** 27.10.11 15:21

Xavier wrote:

I cannot believe what I am reading on this thread. I thnk this forum does some good work, and in a good cause. BUt this thread is very disturbing.

The pictures "provocative"? - (Penguin pocket dictionary definition 2 - "sexually stimulating").

"come and get me"? Possibly. But you seem to be taking this a sexual sense?

"a clear signal"? For gods sake. This is a THREE YEAR OLD CHILD. I did not say the child herself is being provocative at all! The pose is a signal, obviously a child that age would just find it uncomfortable to lie dow like that.

snipped

And no, I am not naive. All of these "adults" poring over pictures of a three year old child and seeing "provocative" make my blood run cold. Take a good look at yourselves.
Yes, I feel you are naive. I hate the way the politically correct 'police' now behave, how Boots confiscate photographs of your child having a bath and so on.
These photographs of Maddie are suspect because: in many photographs she is wearing make up NOT applied by her own little hands.
The blue eyeshadow photograph is very disturbing, absolutely not a natural pose.
The double icecream photo is heavily photoshopped and the hand holding the icecream isn't hers. I hate to have to tell you there is such a thing as symbolism. Both the above are heavily photoshopped.
The one on the floor: the head thrown back, leaning uncomfortably on her elbows is far too suggestive for my taste. The coloboma is added but at slightly the wrong angle. So photoshopped again and they are all posed.
Compare these photos with the one of Maddie and the twins in this topic. She looks like a sad (not made up for once) little girl, even a little ill imo. I've seen very few photos where she looks like a happy little girl, the one on the tricycle is my favourite.

I will no doubt be accused of "trolling" or some such. So be it. Someone has to say something.

by jd 27.10.11 15:54

....Its very clear who the troll is winkwink

by juliet 27.10.11 16:06

Those people who pop up to say "how can you describe the pictures as unhealthy?" are trying to deflect attention from the parents, or whoever set the photos up.

According to these people, it is OUR imaginations which are at fault when we questions why a three-year-old (who soon afterwards disappeared in odd circumstances) is photographed time and again in make-up and odd poses.

Even that horrible picture of Madeleine with a lolly and an icecream, with heavy makeup and a woman's arm grafted on, is apparently just a happy innocent snap. (Even though Kate McCann has often stressed since that Madeleine was so unused to sweet things that she thought a Rich Tea biscuit was a marvellous treat).

by Xavier 27.10.11 16:20

juliet wrote:Those people who pop up to say "how can you describe the pictures as unhealthy?" are trying to deflect attention from the parents, or whoever set the photos up.

According to these people, it is OUR imaginations which are at fault when we questions why a three-year-old (who soon afterwards disappeared in odd circumstances) is photographed time and again in make-up and odd poses.

Even that horrible picture of Madeleine with a lolly and an icecream, with heavy makeup and a woman's arm grafted on, is apparently just a happy innocent snap. (Even though Kate McCann has often stressed since that Madeleine was so unused to sweet things that she thought a Rich Tea biscuit was a marvellous treat).

If you are referring to my post, Juliet, then no. I am not. I am saying that some see pictures of a little girl, playing, putting on mummys make up, eating an ice cream etc.

Some seem to see something sexual. Anyone who sees something sexual in a three year old child has some serious thinking to do.

Probably better if I bow out of this thread now. I am clearly upsetting some sensibilities here.

by Gracias 27.10.11 16:26

Little girls playing with mummy's make up do NOT put it on like that!

by jd 27.10.11 16:29

Xavier wrote:

If you are referring to my post, Juliet, then no. I am not. I am saying that some see pictures of a little girl, playing, putting on mummys make up, eating an ice cream etc.

Some seem to see something sexual. Anyone who sees something sexual in a three year old child has some serious thinking to do.

Probably better if I bow out of this thread now. I am clearly upsetting some sensibilities here.

Probably best that you do. If these pictures were not sexual in their tones then we wouldn't be seeing this in them. You should be more concerned with the Mccanns as they took them and they released them into the public domain, if anyone has some serious thinking to do it is them. Maddie must be the only 3 year old girl that ever existed that can apply her own makeup so professionally like this