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

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?

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’.

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?

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. .

aiyoyo wrote:

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?

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. .

ChillyHeat wrote:I always get a strange feeling that some people have more than 1 computer turned on at times..... 
(Just thinking out loud)

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

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?

The whole time?  I haven't been a part of this discussion much, what is the point that you're talking about?  I've only said that it's easy to change EXIF data.  It is, very easy.

I've no idea whether the image itself has been manipulated.  My experience of digital images is that this one hasn't been, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't.  The manner in which it was produced is definitely suspicious, but there could be other reasons for it than just image manipulation.  Such as - perhaps there were other images on the card that the McCanns didn't want the police to see, so they didn't hand it over.  Nobody knows except for them.

aiyoyo wrote:
What possible reason, IYO, would the Mccanns not want the police to see the other images?

aiyoyo wrote:

Just from looking at the image without the camera for forensics, can you tell us how you were able to discern it hasn't been manipulated?

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:I'm presenting this piece of information just to fill in some gaps that people may have, it may be useful if you're interested.

This is how to change EXIF data if you have Windows Vista/7/8:

1. Right click on the image file you want to change.

2. Choose 'Properties' from the context menu.  This opens the 'Properties' dialog.

3. Select the 'Details' tab.

4. Go to the 'Date Taken' entry and click in the edit field.  You can change the date to any valid date.

5. Click 'Apply' button.

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

aiyoyo wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:I'm presenting this piece of information just to fill in some gaps that people may have, it may be useful if you're interested.

This is how to change EXIF data if you have Windows Vista/7/8:

1. Right click on the image file you want to change.

2. Choose 'Properties' from the context menu.  This opens the 'Properties' dialog.

3. Select the 'Details' tab.

4. Go to the 'Date Taken' entry and click in the edit field.  You can change the date to any valid date.

5. Click 'Apply' button.

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

You can re set data on the camera any time you want, that much is clear.
But how do you change data captured on old exposed images?