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

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.

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. .

Verritas, do you have evidence that Mr Rickwoods "art" is an outlet for a major abuse trauma in his life? If so could you please provide it. If not what is the point of your diatribe?
And it is not really necessary to get in a personal attack with every post. I am not a devil if you know me or not. I am just presenting facts. And I am not insinuating anything, I am saying it. To condone the apparent death or suffering of a woman as entertainment is barbaric.
Also you cannot claim there must be a higher incidence of any personality disorder in Japan with my argument. You can only claim if it is true, that there is more of such "art". Maybe they have more prolific "artists" in Japan.

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.]"

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

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

Why, and what do you mean?

Snipped from Bobbin's post (re. red highlighting)

"
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."





Very good news indeed.   Well done to Tony and other researchers who have drawn this matter to the attention of the Education Authority.


Any idea when the investigation will produce their report?

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.

I mean this whole time you'd been reading this thread before jumping in.

Whether technically it can be done or not, or how easily it can be done by professional or amateur is beside the point.  
As we know a person who's a techno-idiot can get a family member adepts at that kind of work to get it done on their behalf.
What possible reason, IYO, would the Mccanns not want the police to see the other images?

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

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

I stated that the possibility exists.  There's no point in speculating over the details, if we don't know what the details are.  That the possibility exists is correct and undeniable.  I can't give motivations because they could be wrong, it's just speculation.

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?

How can I tell that there isn't an invisible elephant standing in front of me?  Like yours, this question is not answerable.

I can give an answer to a slightly different question: I don't see evidence of image manipulation. And as I said before, that doesn't mean that there isn't any. It means that I don't see any.

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?

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?

By following the simple steps that you have quoted. Try it for yourself.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

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

I stated that the possibility exists.  There's no point in speculating over the details, if we don't know what the details are.  That the possibility exists is correct and undeniable.  I can't give motivations because they could be wrong, it's just speculation.

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?

How can I tell that there isn't an invisible elephant standing in front of me?  Like yours, this question is not answerable.

I can give an answer to a slightly different question: I don't see evidence of image manipulation.  And as I said before, that doesn't mean that there isn't any.  It means that I don't see any.

Equally, other people may not be wrong in their suspicion - that the possibility exists that the image may be manipulated.
Unless you're a photo forensics expert, I'm afraid it's hard to give credence to an anonymous screen name who claim this and that.

aiyoyo wrote:
Equally, other people may not be wrong in their suspicion - that the possibility exists that the image may be manipulated.
Unless you're a photo forensics expert,  I'm afraid it's hard to give credence to an anonymous screen name who claim this and that.

Going around in circles. I've already said that it may be manipulated, just that I can't see it.

I'm just putting forward my opinion, it matters not one jot to me whether you give credence to it.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:
Equally, other people may not be wrong in their suspicion - that the possibility exists that the image may be manipulated.
Unless you're a photo forensics expert,  I'm afraid it's hard to give credence to an anonymous screen name who claim this and that.

Going around in circles.  I've already said that it may be manipulated, just that I can't see it.

I'm just putting forward my opinion, it matters not one jot to me whether you give credence to it.

Ouch, touche!

aiyoyo wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:
Equally, other people may not be wrong in their suspicion - that the possibility exists that the image may be manipulated.
Unless you're a photo forensics expert,  I'm afraid it's hard to give credence to an anonymous screen name who claim this and that.

Going around in circles.  I've already said that it may be manipulated, just that I can't see it.

I'm just putting forward my opinion, it matters not one jot to me whether you give credence to it.

Ouch, touche!

But do you give credence to anonymous screen name's who claim that the image is manipulated?

Ridiculous discussion going on perpetuated by veritas et al. To argue that there are not any photographs that have been digitally manipulated by the Mccann's et al and released is folly. It is abundantly clear that photos have been manipulated and there are many threads on here which have analysed the photographs. The Mccann's even admit themselves manipulation by claiming that they did not make a big thing about the coloboma when they even made t-shirts with the defect on. 

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


What is interesting, is that this is a distraction from this man being Philomena's husband.
Someone pointed out "why haven't we heard about him before?" the only answer can be 'exactly.'. 

Birds of a feather flock together. I wonder if he got on well with David Payne.

loopzdaloop wrote:Ridiculous discussion going on perpetuated by veritas et al. To argue that there are not any photographs that have been digitally manipulated by the Mccann's et al and released is folly. It is abundantly clear that photos have been manipulated and there are many threads on here which have analysed the photographs.  

In other words, anyone who has a different opinion should go away and hide somewhere?  It isn't "abundantly clear" to me that all photos of Maddie have been manipulated, and I've read through these analysis threads.  I say 'not all' because I do have doubts about the tennis photo.

It isn't helpful to call discussion "ridiculous", just because one side of the discussion is something you disagree with.  If image manipulation has been proven then that side of the discussion would be ridiculous.  But it hasn't, so it isn't, it's just one of many differences of opinion that we forum members have.

ETA: Although I have disagreed with Tony about various things, it seems that we do agree that the 'Last Photo' probably hasn't been manipulated. "Probably", because I don't know for sure. I also agree with Tony that the date/time may have been manipulated. Given the suspicious nature of the delivery of this photograph, and the ease with which the date/time can be changed, I think it is a good possibility, although I don't know for sure.

loopzdaloop wrote:
The Mccann's even admit themselves manipulation by claiming that they did not make a big thing about the coloboma when they even made t-shirts with the defect on.

This is a non sequitur.  Saying that they did not make a big thing about the coloboma is a lie on the part of the McCanns, as it is patently obvious that they did.  It doesn't follow that photographs have been manipulated to add a coloboma.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:
Equally, other people may not be wrong in their suspicion - that the possibility exists that the image may be manipulated.
Unless you're a photo forensics expert,  I'm afraid it's hard to give credence to an anonymous screen name who claim this and that.

Going around in circles.  I've already said that it may be manipulated, just that I can't see it.

I'm just putting forward my opinion, it matters not one jot to me whether you give credence to it.

Ouch, touche!

But do you give credence to anonymous screen name's who claim that the image is manipulated?

Nope!

Whatever is behind the sofa should just chill....??

aiyoyo wrote:
Nope!

Ha, you've surprised me aiyoyo - which is cool :)

OOPSIDAISY wrote:Whatever is behind the sofa should just chill....??

Hey? I should chill? Just discussing stuff! :) I'm perfectly chill thank you oopsidaisy!

loopzdaloop wrote:< snip>

What is interesting, is that this is a distraction from this man being Philomena's husband.
Someone pointed out "why haven't we heard about him before?" the only answer can be 'exactly.'. 

To which I would add 'why are we hearing about him now?'.

I don't believe the last photo was photoshopped.
However I believe certain aspect could have been doctored - high possibility of it.
Given the delay in the release, taken together in context with the suspicious circumstances under which it suddenly became available, coupled that with Kate's bizzare effort to draw attention to the time discrepancy which is a banal action since that shouldn't affect the value of it being "last", unless there is a sinister reason behind.

"Last" ? as in -
There are other ones preceding it?
Last one taken during the entire Hol?
Last one taken on the 3rd? hence last seen well and alive on the 3rd?

Why weren't at least some of the preceding ones included in the released portfolio, much better to help people jog memory, rather than say the full-make-up one for example.
Curiously no independent witness saw the family at the Pool on the 3rd. Not even their holiday friends could attest to them being at the Pool on that day.

TMH wrote:


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

Haha, "swallowed a dictionary"! I was dying to use that expression earlier but decided against it. No offense Veritas, but if the cap fits, etc.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
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.

If you had sufficient computing power, you could actually artificially generate every digital photo that ever has been, will be or could be taken. That's how much credence you can give to any given digital image.

loopzdaloop wrote:
Birds of a feather flock together. I wonder if he got on well with David Payne.

And we remember that Payne rang the Child Abuse Unit at SY before midnight.
Then denied it
Then had to admit it during his rogatory, but said he couldn't remember why . . .

ChillyHeat wrote:

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.

Has it? 

Do you know the difference between 'proved beyond doubt' and 'surmised.'

I' m already uncomfortable that the tangents pursued by those amateurs investigating this case from their armchairs has led to such a wholesale demonisation of an ever-widening group beyond the credible core, and into every highway and byway of association, speculating endlessly about intent and pre-meditation, that we are now proud to have 'uncovered' an apparently non-secret hobby which, while not being our taste, is neither unheard of, nor illegal, and has nothing to do with anything in the case itself, so as to harangue probably entirely innocent people because we don't like the contents of their mind. 

I'm afraid I find nothing glib, funny, or justified in subjecting anyone to the feeling of having an element of their life turned over by a jury of pharisees so that their private personal pastimes, legal and their entitlement as free citizens, can become even a topic of conversation, let alone interrogation for the police, for the nation, or indeed for their employers or the employers of a relative.

I guarantee you, the feeling of having your life turned over and being spied on will not be a pleasant one. 

I'll leave you with these lyrics from Prince:

"If a man is considered guilty for what goes on in his mind, then give me the electric chair for all my future crime."

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

TMH wrote:


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

Haha, "swallowed a dictionary"! I was dying to use that expression earlier but decided against it. No offense Veritas, but if the cap fits, etc.

No offence taken, Clay. I'm not one of those precious forum dwellers that squeals at the use of ideas, let alone words. 

To be honest, this has been hysterically funny for me, because all the grammatical corrections Bennett has been issuing in my direction are wasted on me... He should be lecturing Google in the accuracy of auto-correct and predictive text. Its just too funny to enlighten him. I used a word in a previous post which got me into trouble, and lets just say that I'm amusing myself at seeing dictionary definitions embodied in the cyber flesh so readily.

PeterMac wrote:

loopzdaloop wrote:
Birds of a feather flock together. I wonder if he got on well with David Payne.

And we remember that Payne rang the Child Abuse Unit at SY before midnight.
Then denied it
Then had to admit it during his rogatory, but said he couldn't remember why . . .

And as I have often observed, when we get onto a rather 'sensitive' area of discussion, we see veritably vehement reactions which stand out against the normal, well mannered, well considered arguments put forward by capable people, analysing the facts and fictions put in front of them, and who are doing this, for the justice for a little girl who just simply disappeared.
In contrast to the sociopaths and psychopaths embedded in the total of society there is a greater number of 'socially responsible people' who put too much value on the sanctity of human life to let it just go by unchallenged, that a defenseless little girl has been so abused.
Sensitive, explosive reactions advertise the fact that we need to look more closely and more thoroughly at this aspect of current research.
Happily, the Education Authorities, with thanks to members of this forum, will be doing just that.
And it is by contributing to this forum and others similar, throughout, that a great deal of information has been brought out into the open whereby the authorities have become informed and know that the 'socially responsible' portion of society will not let this matter rest and will leave no stone unturned.

Interesting post Peter. Why has Payne not been pressed further on this telephone call. What on earth is going on.

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.

I will make this my last post on this matter as we are speaking from apparently irrevocably different positions, although I am a father, if that counts for anything. Bless you for your no doubt good intentions Dantezebu, but I may well have a more jaded or perhaps pragmatic view of the World. Apologies in advance for what might be a longish post (#iamnotveritas).

I would suggest that this kind of fetishism is much more common in society than the (largely self-appointed) "right thinking" are prepared to countenance. Do you think it's any coincidence that, almost as soon as celluloid was invented, doe-eyed damsels in distress were finding themselves bound to railway lines by mustachio'ed cads? And the audience thrilled as she struggled to escape her impending doom? Now imagine for a moment that the hero of the piece got a better offer, or something, and the poor girl was indeed crushed by the train, and the camera lingered upon her body - do you think the audience would sit there thinking "Get in! This is even better!" or would they faint, vomit and trample over each other in the rush for the exits?

I remember as a child stumbling across the already decades old comic strip Jane, in which the heroine finds herself in ever more contrived peril, all the while wearing less and less clothing. Even as a boy of eight or nine I could see straight through the transparent premise of this "entertainment". She never did get devoured by those crocodiles though.

I've not seen any of Rickwood's "art", and didn't even know that there was such a thing as quicksand fetish until the matter was raised here (although it doesn't surprise me). However, have any of those who did view it discovered a hitherto suppressed urge to drown somebody in quicksand (except for maybe Rickwood himself, hohoho)? If I can assume the answer is no, then it can't be all that toxic, can it? Ah, but those "other" people, you say, the ones with less self control, the more easily manipulated, the mentally weak.... or "men", as feminists like to describe them. We have to protect them from themselves. The problem with this argument is that it actually weakens the condemnation that should be given to those who do step over the line. The chap in the OP, who hanged the girl, for instance. HE is responsible for that crime, and him alone. It's not my fault, or yours, or "society's". Passing on the blame to pornography, or "the internet" seeks in some way to lessen the responsibility he should bear for what he did.

I posted further up the thread about my own brother in law. Should his actions somehow reflect on me? What has Tony Rickwood got to do with the McCann case, beyond speculation? He might be as horrified by what went on as we are. His marriage to PMc predates events in 2007, which could well put him into an agonising personal situation. I can't see what purpose forcibly dragging him out of a closet that he was never even in serves, to be honest. Just more collateral damage in the search for the truth of what happened to Madeleine McCann, and not an inch further forward.