Re: Gerry McCann's brother-in-law, Tony Rickwood, removes his depraved images of women drowning from an internet site

by Veritas 21.12.13 15:10

candyfloss wrote:
Veritas wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Veritas wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Veritas you have a right to reply to Tony's post, but I would make a polite request that you refrain from insults and name calling, there is simply no need for it and you can make your points without resorting to this. You are breaking forum rules. So a reminder, anymore of this and you will no longer be a member of this forum. This is a warning.
Thank you Candyfloss. Can you point out for the forum which insults and name calling you are specifically referring to? If you document them I will gladly and publicly account for them and correct or apologise for them where necessary.

I think 'smug bugger' and 'you fool' (which I deleted by the way) is insulting, don't you?

In context I concede your objection to the term 'bugger' and propose its replacement with the term 'so-and-so.'

Given that the comment which elicited response was a smug reference to Mr Bennett having to correct my spelling in order to enable him to repost what I wrote, the use of the word on my part was merely observational. And in the light of him having made a pig's ear of the job that he so smugly claimed to have performed, I can think of no more polite a way to express the ironic foolishness of his entire self-defeating performance in establishing academic superiority. As they say, if the cap fits... I worry that we all get a little too precious about what words we take offence at.

This forum prides itself on being a pleasant place where members can read and post. You obviously think that using such words is acceptable, but I don't and as I said it is breaking forum rules, as you are attacking the poster. Now a simple apology will suffice with a guarantee that it will not happen again, and no more will be said about it.

Let me check that I understand this correctly... You want me to commit to never again responding to smugness by identifying it as being smug, and you want me never to identify foolishness as being foolish? Any other words that I need to erase from the dictionary?

by Liz Eagles 21.12.13 15:14

Veritas wrote:Curious observation of my detractors... You've attacked and disregarded my posts, I get that. But on what basis?

You've critiqued its tone for having disagreed with one of your sacred cows.
You've critiqued the occasional spelling or grammatical errors.
You've critiqued the length. Quite how you have the balls to do this in a setting where it is an unwritten prerequisite to have read police transcripts verbatim, even entire books in order to have an informed opinion is beyond me. I've never been so rude or self-important as to proudly profess my ignorance in refusing to read someone's argument before responding or critiquing it so harshly.

But one thing is apparent. Not one word has been scripted in response to the material substance of what I wrote. Anything but.

I feel sad for what that conveys to the members of the public you hope somehow to appeal to. I feel sad for how disrespectful that is to the process Goncalo adheres to.

Don't feel sad Veritas.

by Guest 21.12.13 15:17

He was weeping the other day.

by Liz Eagles 21.12.13 16:05

Quote from Veritas

IF the parents covered up their own culpability, which I believe, the '21 days', and the sudden arrival of the last photo, are entirely consistent with an evolving narrative, with afterthoughts, and indeed with the evolving nature of the circumstantial developments, demonstrating if nothing else that the massive fundraising effort was not a preconceived motive, but rather an expedient bonus - for which the sudden need for a bunch of happy family heart-tugging snapshots is apparent. And to be fair, even Pinkie might be a genuine believer, but he has a job cut out for him as the PR for this family... his advice, and he knows it, has to prevent the public from associating the McCann's - from the outset - with child endangerment or dereliction of duty. And for that purpose a good PR would retrospectively advise the client to dig out a history of media which evoke the right emotions in those whose opinion is to be managed. Like every good PR, he believes what he's told, and he asks no more than he needs in order to enable him to act objectively in the interest of the client, without ever being legally culpable for anything less than savoury - especially if for some reason his assignment was from the highest levels in the land, and offered him the promise of good things in high places in the future.

End Quote

You seriously can't attach that statement to Clarence Mitchell can you?

This is a direct question to Veritas who wrote this stuff.

by Genbug 21.12.13 16:49

Tony Bennett wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
12. Tony Rickwood is an expert photoshopper i.e. manipulating photographic images

13. Tony Rickwood has admitted publicly to a 'quicksand fetish', he has produced numerous images of naked women dying by drowning, and said he wanted to make a video of a quicksand death.

Has anybody here actually inspected an example of Mr. Rickwood's handiwork? I must admit I haven't! Are they convincing?

Yes. Several people have monitored his work and researched his history, back to his making arrangements with his then partner Philomena McCann for the holiday in Turkey in June 2007, just weeks after Madeleine was reported missing. Material relating to his property in Spain has also been researched.

Just to clarify, they have been married since 2002.

by Nereid 21.12.13 17:04

Tony Bennett wrote:
Nereid, you may be referring to this message from Tony Rickwood on the 'Deviant Art' site, written by him this summer. His message was accompanied by a very naked lady in quicksand/mud:

"I've always wanted to do a sort of tribute to Enrique Romero who did, among others, the amazing AXA comic strip. A formative scene for me was when the heroine is led into quicksand by a jealous rival and left to sink to her doom. Now, ordinarily I'm not for doing nude artwork, but since it is in the spirit of the original comic series, I am making this one exception. It's not the best render, but I hope it comes across OK".

Well, we can all make of that what we will.

I do not know, however, if you have seen some of his pages and pages of quicksand photos. He gives his photos some quite graphic titles, here are solme of them:

"Don't quite know why"

"Desert sinkhole"

"Helpless"

"The Pond"

"Sinking fast"

"Grab"

"OMG!"

"Chillin'", and

"No escape".

Taking just those nine photos, three are of women with no clothes on, and one is only wearing a very skimpy bikini top. All of the remaining five are very lightly clothed.

Thanks to the efforts of CMOMM members, these photoshopped images are no longer on the internet. But several people have screen grabs of them, and these are amongst a file of evidence that Highland Council Education Authority is now investigating.

I've seen a fair few of them, when researching him. But no nude ones. But if as you say there were more than just the one, than I stand corrected.
The titles are certainly creepy and sinister.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.12.13 17:11

Genbug wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
12. Tony Rickwood is an expert photoshopper i.e. manipulating photographic images

13. Tony Rickwood has admitted publicly to a 'quicksand fetish', he has produced numerous images of naked women dying by drowning, and said he wanted to make a video of a quicksand death.

Has anybody here actually inspected an example of Mr. Rickwood's handiwork? I must admit I haven't! Are they convincing?

Yes. Several people have monitored his work and researched his history, back to his making arrangements with his then partner Philomena McCann for the holiday in Turkey in June 2007, just weeks after Madeleine was reported missing. Material relating to his property in Spain has also been researched.

Just to clarify, they have been married since 2002.

Thank you. They continue to use different names, though they are married - and I didn't know the date of the wedding. So they have been married for 11 years?

by Veritas 21.12.13 17:21

aquila wrote:Quote from Veritas

IF the parents covered up their own culpability, which I believe, the '21 days', and the sudden arrival of the last photo, are entirely consistent with an evolving narrative, with afterthoughts, and indeed with the evolving nature of the circumstantial developments, demonstrating if nothing else that the massive fundraising effort was not a preconceived motive, but rather an expedient bonus - for which the sudden need for a bunch of happy family heart-tugging snapshots is apparent. And to be fair, even Pinkie might be a genuine believer, but he has a job cut out for him as the PR for this family... his advice, and he knows it, has to prevent the public from associating the McCann's - from the outset - with child endangerment or dereliction of duty. And for that purpose a good PR would retrospectively advise the client to dig out a history of media which evoke the right emotions in those whose opinion is to be managed. Like every good PR, he believes what he's told, and he asks no more than he needs in order to enable him to act objectively in the interest of the client, without ever being legally culpable for anything less than savoury - especially if for some reason his assignment was from the highest levels in the land, and offered him the promise of good things in high places in the future.

End Quote

You seriously can't attach that statement to Clarence Mitchell can you?

This is a direct question to Veritas who wrote this stuff.

I didn't attach the statement to anyone.

I let the statement stand as a possibility.

I don't know what CM thinks, suspects or knows. I don't know who made him change his life or why. And neither do you.

It is not plausible to assume that everyone who facilitates or supports TM has full disclosure and is criminally culpable. Knowing how PR works, CM's less than slick operation is hanging on his own neck. It isn't an agency packed with fixers and facilitators. I know that CM doesn't want to go to prison. Therefore I have to assume one of three things. First, the McConn's are guilty of nothing more than lousy parenting. Second, CM is operating a don't ask, don't tell policy to maintain plausible deniability and keep his hands legally, if not morally, clean. Third, CM knows the guilty secrets and has been guaranteed immunity. Three is only plausible ifCM's role is to work against TM and 'come out on the side of justice.' If that isn't the case and he has full knowledge then he can only be an idiot of the first order to represent so publicly in his own name from the outset and before he can even evaluate the liability of the case and its unfolding implications.

You have to figure out what you think and why. One thing is sure... This case has never had enough money in it to mitigate the risks involved with culpability in a crime of this scale for someone like CM. The only forces bigger than money are either conviction or a calling from a higher power.

by **PeterMac** 21.12.13 17:25

And just to clarify - again - the Turkey holiday was an "Educational trip", detailed in the school prospectus, and covered on its separate thread some time ago., with all the references.
It seems that Philomena went - teacher and head of the department which includes History.
Sister Sandy MCann / Cameron went - reason not known
Husband Tony Rickwood went - ditto

It is required that there is a certain adult / young person ratio, so one can only suppose that the family members are roped in (- reluctanty ?) to make up the numbers.

One wonders if the Teacher who was struck off went on previous holidays.

by Guest 21.12.13 17:27

candyfloss wrote:

This forum prides itself on being a pleasant place where members can read and post.

In that case I'll have to stay on the fence about this forum's "outing" of Mr. Rickwood. I'm not sure if it's a genuine attempt to shine a light into the murky corners of the McCann case or an act of vindictiveness against a man who has naively made himself an easy target.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 21.12.13 17:55

Tony Bennett wrote:But any competent photoshopper could easily alter either the date or the time of the photo.

Just a small detail, but altering the date/time of a photo isn't 'photoshopping', it doesn't require a 'photoshopper'.

by Guest 21.12.13 17:58

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:But any competent photoshopper could easily alter either the date or the time of the photo.

Just a small detail, but altering the date/time of a photo isn't 'photoshopping', it doesn't require a 'photoshopper'.

***
Anyone can change EXIF data on their camera. But it would take a skilled, computer programmer-type of person, to do that without leaving a trace ...

by Guest 21.12.13 18:00

Ladyinred wrote:He was weeping the other day.

I've probably lost the plot with all the lengthy posts here - less is definitely more for me, if you see what I mean - but to whom does this refer, Ladyinred?

by **Tony Bennett** 21.12.13 19:21

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:He was weeping the other day.

I've probably lost the plot with all the lengthy posts here - less is definitely more for me, if you see what I mean - but to whom does this refer, Ladyinred?

Veritas said he was weeping for the appalling state of this forum amd its arguments (!)

by **Tony Bennett** 21.12.13 19:23

[NOTE: FORUM rules:, No. 2: "NEVER ATTACK ANOTHER MEMBER - that includes calling people trolls etc. Any worries contact admin or mods".]

Veritas,

Thank you for your reply.

The first thing to say is that I think that as a result of this thread, we are getting to know you rather better than we have done so far. And I think that is a thoroughly good thing. Moreover, as Hughie Green used to say back in the 1960s: ‘And I mean that most sincerely’.

The second thing to say is that, as ‘candyfloss’ has already pointed out, there is a fair degree of abuse in your post, a clear breach of forum rules, as it happens. Well, let Admin deal with that as they see fit. My only other comment on that is that, as has been noted by many wise observers, personal abuse is almost invariable the signature of someone losing an argument.

Third, I find the picture of myself as a ‘sacred cow’ on this forum quite amusing. Have a look at the ‘Smithman’ threads here, and you’ll see that I’ve taken a great deal of flak from new and old members alike over my analysis of the claims of the Smith family about ‘Smithman’. On the whole, that debate was not personal. I have made my points, and the majority of forum members are very far from persuaded by them. But that is part of robust debate. So far, I am losing that debate.

But now on to the main points of our exchange.

1. When you posted in reply to my 13 points, you sounded very angry with me. In fact you still do. I consider that ‘enraged’ was accurate. I am sorry if you think that was not reasonably accurate.

2. Rather than deal with your long paragraphs about my being an autocratic patriarch of this forum who can’t bear to be challenged, let me refer back to my post which caused you to react in the way you did. Basically, all it was, was the recital of 13 facts. Some may be relevant to the unexplained saga of the ‘Last Photo’, some may not be. And to answer Clay Regazzoni’s point, having as your brother-in-law someone not only handy at photoshopping and photo manipulation, but also an admitted lifelong obsession with women dying in quicksand, can’t be easily be dismissed as ‘being vindictive to a naïve man’.

3. I say Rickwood is a photoshopping expert. So do his esteemed colleagues who also place deviant manipulated photographs on a photoshopping section of the ‘Deviant Art’ site. You say he is not an expert. We are basically quarelling about the degree of his expertise, then, right? OK, let’s leave it there. Except to say that in mounting your arguments, you are professing to the entire forum that you are a true expert in photo manipulation, so much so that you are able to rule Rickwood as ‘not an expert’. In other words, you could make a much better job of photoshopping than Rickwood.

4. You wrote: “If you were a good judge of photoshop expertise, you'd know exactly why photoshop experts would utterly disregard every image that you now obsess over from Rickwood's collection as being remotely related to any kind of photographic forgery to which you frequently allude [sp.]. REPLY: May I remind you, Veritas, that I openly stated in my previous post that I regard the ‘Last Photo’ as NOT photoshopped. I am sure you are aware of this, but I was raising the issue of whether it was possible that the ‘Last Photo’ could have been taken at a time and/or date other than 2.29pm on 3 May 2007. [I am sorry to have corrected ‘ellude’. The correct spelling of ‘ellude’ is ‘elude’, but in fact you really meant ‘allude’, see here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ]

5. Once again, you completely represented my position to, and deliberately so, by claiming that I had said the photograph was ‘faked’. As anyone who has read this thread will know, I have said exactly the opposite, namely that it is a genuine photograph. I am exploring whether it is possible that the date and/or time claimed for it may be inaccurate. 'You haven't answered... why there was a 21 day delay.'

6. I wrote: 'You haven't answered... why there was a 21 day delay.' This was your answer: “There isn't an answer. Only a supposition. Assumption. Preposition”. OK, so then that is your answer: there is no answer. But you have not put forward any credible explanation for the delay, nor has anyone else so far as I’m aware”. [ By the way, and I am sorry to point this out to you, but I think you meant ‘Presupposition’, not ‘Preposition’. Preposition means a word about place, such as ‘into’, ‘on’, ‘at’, ‘around’, under’ and so on. ]

7. You wrote: “I could say that the 21 day delay gives all the hallmarks of being simple panic reaction”. My reply: that does not seem a credible explanation to me. That photo was available to the McCanns and the whole rapidly-growing McCann Team and the police on 3^rd May, 4^th May, 5^th May, 6^th May and so on, and would have been by far the best photo (being both recent and of good quality) to have helped the searching police and public to identify her). Why was it held back for 21 days?

8. You wrote: “I guarantee you that Rickwood could not produce an unimpeachable photographic forgery if you gave him 365 consecutive days in which to do so”. OK, I don’t dispute that, do I? Let me repeat, I believe the evidence suggests that the photograph is a genuine, not-photoshopped’ photograph of Amelie, Madeleine and Dr Gerald McCann, taken sometime during the week 28 April to 3 May 2007. Now can you please answer me this: “How easy or difficult would it be for Rickwood (or anyone else for that matter) to alter either the date the photograph was taken, or the time (or both), so that the date and time of the photograph was shown as 2.29pm on 3 May 2007 - when in reality it may have been taken earlier in the week?

9. You say that the photograph may “demonstrate at best only marginal tampering - that of the creation date…” I am grateful for the concession. And later you also wrote: “…an authentic photograph [may have been] minimally tampered with in respect of its creation date in EXIF data in order to present an alibi to a question that wasn't being asked at the time”. But why in heaven’s name would anyone want to ‘tamper’ (your word) with the date on which the photograph was created? And honestly, Veritas, live up to your name: ‘Veritas’ is Latin for ‘triuth’ – is altering the date of a photograph of a missing child – in order to deliberately mislead - ‘minimal’?

10. There is a long convoluted paragraph of yours about Clarence Mitchell. I fail to see any relevance of that to the question under discussion: whether Rickwood or anyone else could have altered the date and time stamps on the ‘Last Photo’ data.

11. You wrote: “Frankly, I think you're getting off on repeating the words 'Deviant Art.' And you've been pulled on this before…” Don’t know what you mean exactly, but let’s simply add it to the long list of abusive comments about me, none of which I intend to reply to, as they do not relate to my 13 facts (which we should be coming back to).

12. You claimed I hadn’t answered these three questions: (1) Why does the image in question show no sign of being digitally manipulated or artificially constructed? (2) Why does your theory insinuate the identity of an 'expert photoshopper' who is materially incapable of producing the kind of work that you're insisting has been conducted? (3) Why are you professing sufficient authority and expertise in subjects that your skills clearly demonstrate you have little to no knowledge of, in order to prosecute a single line of conspiracy theory at the expense of far more credible and supportable alternatives? MY ANSWERS: 1. I agree that the image shows no sign of being digitally manipulated, as I said right from the outset. Why ask the question? 2. I think it is possible that, for whatever reason, Rickwood (or someone else) could have altered either the date or time of the image. 3. That’s a bit like the question: ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’. To repeat: Rickwood’s colleagues on the ‘Deviant Art’ site think he is an expert photoshopper and admire his photoshopping skills.

13. You wrote: “And just as you find yourself praised on this site by some who, it appears, are merely being polite, accolades in such a shallow and muddy pond are hardly hallmark accreditations for skill”. REPLY: I don’t think that the forum-owner and ‘candyfloss’, never mind other members here, will be too happy about that remark.

14. You asked: ’Who is Alex Woolfall?’ Try putting ‘Woolfall’ into the forum’s search bar. You’ll find a lot about him right here.

15. I’m sorry you don’t yet know about the police officer from Hampshire. As the released PJ files make clear, a SIMcard, or memory card, or whatever it was called, was delivered to this officer on Tuesday 8 May and he interrogated it on Wednesday 9 May, making black-0and-white images from coloured mages. The images he downloaded/printed off are also available on the released PJ files.

16. Finally, I wrote, “As you must concede, I stated 13 facts. There was no speculation and no assumption. Please also formally withdraw that additional false statement on this thread”. You replied: “I'll concede nothing of the sort…One of your 13 statements called Rickwood an 'Expert Photoshopper'. Correct it…and we'll take a look at the other 12”. You claimed that my 13 facts were all ‘speculation and assumption’. All you can find is that we disagree on the degree of Rickwood’s admitted expertise’. Unless you can point to anything else in the list of 13 points that was not strictly factual, kindly withdraw your charge that these were not facts.

by Guest 21.12.13 19:39

Thank you Tony, good reply. I had missed the bit about the murky pond, it was such a long post I lost the will to live big grin

and my internet keep disconnecting.

To Veritas, if you wish to continue to be a member of this forum, please have the decency to treat members like you would want to be treated, and have the grace to show respect to members. By all means you can state your opinions and why you disagree but any further insults to any member here or any attacks on this forum will result in you being shown the door.

by PennyX 21.12.13 19:41

candyfloss wrote:
Veritas wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Veritas you have a right to reply to Tony's post, but I would make a polite request that you refrain from insults and name calling, there is simply no need for it and you can make your points without resorting to this. You are breaking forum rules. So a reminder, anymore of this and you will no longer be a member of this forum. This is a warning.
Thank you Candyfloss. Can you point out for the forum which insults and name calling you are specifically referring to? If you document them I will gladly and publicly account for them and correct or apologise for them where necessary.

I think 'smug bugger' and 'you fool' (which I deleted by the way) is insulting, don't you?

As a fellow forum member the debate Veritas offers is welcomed. Mr Bennett should not be protected, we are all adults posting here. I too don't agree with all Mr Bennett posts, I find them very one sided. Debate is good and part of our basic freedoms. Veritas was putting forward another point of view which balances Mr Bennett's. I think this is how it should be. This makes the forum a better place, doesn't it?

by Daisy 21.12.13 19:56

Long-winded posts just turn me off. Far far superfluous in words for my liking. It doesn't look big or clever.

by Guest 21.12.13 20:00

Tony Bennett wrote:And to answer Clay Regazzoni’s point, having as your brother-in-law someone not only handy at photoshopping and photo manipulation, but also an admitted lifelong obsession with women dying in quicksand, can’t be easily be dismissed as ‘being vindictive to a naïve man’.

Well I actually said I was on the fence. It's just something else we're unlikely to ever be in agreement on. But "exposing" somebody who was already quite upfront about their proclivities does feel a little to me like putting the boot in just because you could. Or else why stop at him?

by **Tony Bennett** 21.12.13 20:12

PennyX wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Veritas wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Veritas you have a right to reply to Tony's post, but I would make a polite request that you refrain from insults and name calling, there is simply no need for it and you can make your points without resorting to this. You are breaking forum rules. So a reminder, anymore of this and you will no longer be a member of this forum. This is a warning.
Thank you Candyfloss. Can you point out for the forum which insults and name calling you are specifically referring to? If you document them I will gladly and publicly account for them and correct or apologise for them where necessary.

I think 'smug bugger' and 'you fool' (which I deleted by the way) is insulting, don't you?

As a fellow forum member the debate Veritas offers is welcomed. Mr Bennett should not be protected, we are all adults posting here. I too don't agree with all Mr Bennett posts, I find them very one sided. Debate is good and part of our basic freedoms. Veritas was putting forward another point of view which balances Mr Bennett's. I think this is how it should be. This makes the forum a better place, doesn't it?

This is indeed proving to be a very revealing thread.

PennyX can apparently see the 'one sided' aspect of my posts on this subject, but is unable to see the 'one sided' responses from Veritas.

PennyX is also apparently unable to see that Veritas's very long post was dripping with strong abuse, paragraph after paragraph, line after line. 'We are all adults', she says. Yes, say we are, PennyX, but then polite posters debate politely, and rude posters fill up their posts with abuse.

I am happy to debate with Veritas, but I'm not happy to see all the abuse he throws up. But in a way, that's a matter for him - his abuse and my lack of it tell their own story. I must say, 'smug bugger' was a new one for me, though. Your response did raise a laugh: "In context I concede your objection to the term 'bugger' and propose its replacement with the term 'so-and-so.' Given that the comment which elicited response was a smug reference to Mr Bennett having to correct my spelling in order to enable him to repost what I wrote, the use of the word on my part was merely observational".

Veritas, you're making life difficult for our referee here, 'candyfloss'. She actually allowerd 'smug bugger', but deleted the word 'fool'. Such is the fine line that you crossed, Veritas.

Some of what you said does go a bit over my head though. You wrote: "You appeal to the reader to defer to your lead regardless of the substance of the debate. To do so you paint your own colours on the dialectic". I've never in my life before been accused of 'painting my own colours on the dialectic". 'candyfloss', that doesn't sound very nice, does it? Is it within the forum rules?

I have made a polite request (now repeated) for Veritas to withdraw his obviously wrong remarks, such as claiming that my list of 13 facts is 'speculation and assumption'. If he is a reasonable debater, he will graciously accept the correction and reply to the 16 points listed above calmly and by tackling the argument, not the poster.

by ultimaThule 21.12.13 20:16

Veritas wrote:
aquila wrote:Quote from Veritas

IF the parents covered up their own culpability, which I believe, the '21 days', and the sudden arrival of the last photo, are entirely consistent with an evolving narrative, with afterthoughts, and indeed with the evolving nature of the circumstantial developments, demonstrating if nothing else that the massive fundraising effort was not a preconceived motive, but rather an expedient bonus - for which the sudden need for a bunch of happy family heart-tugging snapshots is apparent. And to be fair, even Pinkie might be a genuine believer, but he has a job cut out for him as the PR for this family... his advice, and he knows it, has to prevent the public from associating the McCann's - from the outset - with child endangerment or dereliction of duty. And for that purpose a good PR would retrospectively advise the client to dig out a history of media which evoke the right emotions in those whose opinion is to be managed. Like every good PR, he believes what he's told, and he asks no more than he needs in order to enable him to act objectively in the interest of the client, without ever being legally culpable for anything less than savoury - especially if for some reason his assignment was from the highest levels in the land, and offered him the promise of good things in high places in the future.

End Quote

You seriously can't attach that statement to Clarence Mitchell can you?

This is a direct question to Veritas who wrote this stuff.

I didn't attach the statement to anyone.

I let the statement stand as a possibility.

I don't know what CM thinks, suspects or knows. I don't know who made him change his life or why. And neither do you.

It is not plausible to assume that everyone who facilitates or supports TM has full disclosure and is criminally culpable. Knowing how PR works, CM's less than slick operation is hanging on his own neck. It isn't an agency packed with fixers and facilitators. I know that CM doesn't want to go to prison. Therefore I have to assume one of three things. First, the McConn's are guilty of nothing more than lousy parenting. Second, CM is operating a don't ask, don't tell policy to maintain plausible deniability and keep his hands legally, if not morally, clean. Third, CM knows the guilty secrets and has been guaranteed immunity. Three is only plausible ifCM's role is to work against TM and 'come out on the side of justice.' If that isn't the case and he has full knowledge then he can only be an idiot of the first order to represent publicly in his own name from the outset and before he can even evaluate the liability of the case and its unfolding implications.

You have to figure out what you think and why. One thing is sure... This case has never had enough money in it to mitigate the risks involved with culpability in a crime of this scale for someone like CM. The only forces bigger than money are either conviction or a calling from a higher power.

There is no ambiguity in your having attached the statement highlighted in red by aquila to Clarence Mitchell, nor can there be any doubt that the statements I have highlighted in blue are ones which you have also attributed to him.

These statements imply that you are personally acquainted with Mr Mitchell as, indeed, they can only be made by someone who has conversed with him or otherwise ascertained the words which you have effectively put into his mouth.

Yet you claim that you don't know what Mitchell thinks, suspects, or knows.

May we then take it your earlier assurance "I guarantee you that Rickwood could not produce an unimpeachable photographic forgery if you gave him 365 consecutive days in which to do so" is worth no more than the virtual reality paper it's written on?

by Guest 21.12.13 20:31

Sorry, if I'm a nuisance, but can we please make pointed comments? I'm having a headache trying to scroll down pages ...

IMO, what we have here is a clash of "titans". Both their attack and their defense would IMO greatly proffer from dealing with one point of discussion at the time ... I'm saying this, because I have primo switched off at reading those "pages" and secundo [and subsequently] have become uninterested in the debate.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 21.12.13 22:10

Châtelaine wrote:
Anyone can change EXIF data on their camera. But it would take a skilled, computer programmer-type of person, to do that without leaving a trace ...

I beg to differ - although I am a skilled, computer programmer-type of person (hehe), it is very easy to change stuff like EXIF data, just in Windows. It doesn't require 'hacking' or any skill of any kind, just a simple google search and you can do it yourself in a matter of one minute. You won't leave any trace. Image files are just streams of numbers that can be changed, just like any file. It's very easy to do, and I'm sure someone like, for example, Gerry, could have done it.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 21.12.13 22:15

Tony Bennett wrote:

This is indeed proving to be a very revealing thread.

PennyX can apparently see the 'one sided' aspect of my posts on this subject, but is unable to see the 'one sided' responses from Veritas.

Quoting the forum rule about not calling people trolls, and then implying something ... well what exactly?

But as for Veritas, although I agree with a lot of his/her points, I don't approve of attacking posters personally.

by aiyoyo 21.12.13 22:42

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
Anyone can change EXIF data on their camera. But it would take a skilled, computer programmer-type of person, to do that without leaving a trace ...

I beg to differ - although I am a skilled, computer programmer-type of person (hehe), it is very easy to change stuff like EXIF data, just in Windows. It doesn't require 'hacking' or any skill of any kind, just a simple google search and you can do it yourself in a matter of one minute. You won't leave any trace. Image files are just streams of numbers that can be changed, just like any file. It's very easy to do, and I'm sure someone like, for example, Gerry, could have done it.

You'r missing the point this whole time!

SO, do you know definitely whether the photo had been manipulated or not?

by bobbin 21.12.13 23:07

Tony Bennett wrote:
Nereid wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

12. Tony Rickwood... [SNIPPED]

With regards to Tony Rickwood, as far as I know, he has produced ONE picture of a naked or semi-naked woman. All others are clothed. So, even though his tastes are very deviant, we must stick to the facts.

This is what Rickwood says about a nudeness/quicksand scenario:

"I would have to agree that for watching sinking, it has to be clothed. I'm not really into the erotic side of this and I agree with that quicksand "adventures" normally happen by accident, so unless the victim is a naked rambler, it seems a bit too unreal for me. I much prefer the Explorer/Jungle Jane theme or the long-dressed running into trouble situation and especially where there is that lovely settling of the clothing across the quicksand, further encumbering the luckless (or lucky!) damsel. This of course only applies to female action. Blokes just don't do it for me at all. And as for practicalities- I, for one wouldn't jump into a bog up here at any time of the year without at least some thermal protection!"

I question his 'I'm not really into the erotic side of this'. What side of it is he into then?

We are right to question the Last Photo. Its release several weeks after the missing of Madeleine is very suspect. It must have been released that late in the day for very good reason! If it was not because of photo-manipulation, it must have been for something else.

Nereid, you may be referring to this message from Tony Rickwood on the 'Deviant Art' site, written by him this summer. His message was accompanied by a very naked lady in quicksand/mud:

"I've always wanted to do a sort of tribute to Enrique Romero who did, among others, the amazing AXA comic strip. A formative scene for me was when the heroine is led into quicksand by a jealous rival and left to sink to her doom. Now, ordinarily I'm not for doing nude artwork, but since it is in the spirit of the original comic series, I am making this one exception. It's not the best render, but I hope it comes across OK".

Well, we can all make of that what we will.

I do not know, however, if you have seen some of his pages and pages of quicksand photos. He gives his photos some quite graphic titles, here are solme of them:

"Don't quite know why"

"Desert sinkhole"

"Helpless"

"The Pond"

"Sinking fast"

"Grab"

"OMG!"

"Chillin'", and

"No escape".

Taking just those nine photos, three are of women with no clothes on, and one is only wearing a very skimpy bikini top. All of the remaining five are very lightly clothed.

Thanks to the efforts of CMOMM members, these photoshopped images are no longer on the internet. But several people have screen grabs of them, and these are amongst a file of evidence that Highland Council Education Authority is now investigating.

Thanks Tony and CMOMM members, that's really good news. high5

by Guest 21.12.13 23:24

As a woman and a mother I have to state that I regard the images produced by Rickwood to be very disturbing. And I am very pleased that they have been removed from uncensored public viewing. Anyone who thinks that women suffering a very unpleasant death is a form of art or entertainment is sick. I think he made it clear that it was not for the pornographic effect that he was making the images, as nudity was not important to him. So the suffering is what stimulates him. To enjoy the suffering of another individual requires a lack of empathy, and then we are into the realm of a sociopath or if you prefer, psychopath again. And these individuals are quite cabable of acting out their fetishes without conscience, although admittidly not all do. However the constraining factor is often the lack of opportunity, or ability. Not lack of intent.

As an aside
the current estimate of ASPD in the population is around 4%, which would mean on a forum of circa 3200 members there would be around 80 such individuals. I don't like bullying in any of its forms and I thank Candyfloss for making a stand against it.

by Veritas 21.12.13 23:54

dantezebu wrote:As a woman and a mother I have to state that I regard the images produced by Rickwood to be very disturbing. And I am very pleased that they have been removed from uncensored public viewing. Anyone who thinks that women suffering a very unpleasant death is a form of art or entertainment is sick. I think he made it clear that it was not for the pornographic effect that he was making the images, as nudity was not important to him. So the suffering is what stimulates him. To enjoy the suffering of another individual requires a lack of empathy, and then we are into the realm of a sociopath or if you prefer, psychopath again. And these individuals are quite cabable of acting out their fetishes without conscience, although admittidly not all do. However the constraining factor is often the lack of opportunity, or ability. Not lack of intent.

As an aside
the current estimate of ASPD in the population is around 4%, which would mean on a forum of circa 3200 members there would be around 80 such individuals. I don't like bullying in any of its forms and I thank Candyfloss for making a stand against it.

Dantezebu, I suggest you conduct a study into the artistic output of major trauma/abuse survivors. The obsession with dark, even exploitative themes is not uncommon and represents subconscious catharsis. There is no accounting for the expressions of the human soul and there are a great many who would regard incessant nattering about unsolved crimes, gruesome speculation about child abuse and murder, and regular forum posting as being every bit as creepy. The only difference between you, and the person on Deviant Art's graphic art site who is alleged to be "that" Mr Rickwood is that we know what his fantasies are and how he exercises (or exorcises) them, whereas yours are still a mystery. On consideration I'd actually rank him as less of a danger, in that regard, than you. As they say, better the devil you know... He has, at least, made himself easy to monitor, easy to judge, even easy to stitch uwp with scandalous insinuations and accusations. That's more than any of us have done. Yet allegedly he's smart enough to help perpetrate an incredible crime, while being dumb enough (Am I allowed to use the forum to call someone dumb, admin?) to light himself up in neon before doing so.

And if fantasising about scantily clad ladies in situations of grave peril (and drawing it) is a crime, I suggest you never delve into the modern culture of Japan, South Korea or China. Avoid anime and manga completely. Half the population of Japan must be borderline psycopathic deviant criminal. .

by chillyheat 22.12.13 0:12

Veritas wrote:
dantezebu wrote:As a woman and a mother I have to state that I regard the images produced by Rickwood to be very disturbing. And I am very pleased that they have been removed from uncensored public viewing. Anyone who thinks that women suffering a very unpleasant death is a form of art or entertainment is sick. I think he made it clear that it was not for the pornographic effect that he was making the images, as nudity was not important to him. So the suffering is what stimulates him. To enjoy the suffering of another individual requires a lack of empathy, and then we are into the realm of a sociopath or if you prefer, psychopath again. And these individuals are quite cabable of acting out their fetishes without conscience, although admittidly not all do. However the constraining factor is often the lack of opportunity, or ability. Not lack of intent.

As an aside
the current estimate of ASPD in the population is around 4%, which would mean on a forum of circa 3200 members there would be around 80 such individuals. I don't like bullying in any of its forms and I thank Candyfloss for making a stand against it.

Dantezebu, I suggest you conduct a study into the artistic output of major trauma/abuse survivors. The obsession with dark, even exploitative themes is not uncommon and represents subconscious catharsis. There is no accounting for the expressions of the human soul and there are a great many who would regard incessant nattering about unsolved crimes, gruesome speculation about child abuse and murder, and regular forum posting as being every bit as creepy. The only difference between you, and the person on Deviant Art's graphic art site who is alleged to be "that" Mr Rickwood is that we know what his fantasies are and how he exercises (or exorcises) them, whereas yours are still a mystery. On consideration I'd actually rank him as less of a danger, in that regard, than you. As they say, better the devil you know... He has, at least, made himself easy to monitor, easy to judge, even easy to stitch uwp with scandalous insinuations and accusations. That's more than any of us have done. Yet allegedly he's smart enough to help perpetrate an incredible crime, while being dumb enough (Am I allowed to use the forum to call someone dumb, admin?) to light himself up in neon before doing so.

And if fantasising about scantily clad ladies in situations of grave peril (and drawing it) is a crime, I suggest you never delve into the modern culture of Japan, South Korea or China. Avoid anime and manga completely. Half the population of Japan must be borderline psycopathic deviant criminal. .

Veritas, its been proved beyond doubt it is the correct Rickwood.

by TMH 22.12.13 0:13

"The only difference between you, and the person on Deviant Art's graphic art site who is alleged to be "that" Mr Rickwood is that we know what his fantasies are and how he exercises (or exorcises) them, whereas yours are still a mystery. On consideration I'd actually rank him as less of a danger, in that regard, than you."

Veritas - That really is a shocking statement to make! Is there really any need to be so rude? Just because someone finds women drowning in quicksand disturbing (as quite alot of people do - me included), it does not give you the right to say that their views are not valid and try and belittle them. I've watched you being snidey to some posters and I must say that I don't think that you're a very nice person at all - in fact, you're quite pompous!

I'm sorry Admin, but I just wanted to put my view across and if you feel the need to ban me then fair enough, I just can't stand to see people thinking they're better than others and post like they've swallowed a dictionary - it's ridiculous

Gerry McCann's brother-in-law, Tony Rickwood, removes his depraved images of women drowning from an internet site