The prince and the paedophile

[Spud]

In This shot of Ghislaine by herself the entire door frame can be seen.
Here is the fake with the door frame completely missing except a little on the lower right side.

Edit: Uncropped photo of all three

[Outrider]

In This shot of Ghislaine by herself the entire door frame can be seen.
Here is the fake with the door frame completely missing except a little on the lower right side.

It's not a fake, it's just a different picture taken at a different time on the same day - if you look at her arms she's adopting a different stance, the angle along the hallway is different.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It's not a fake, it's just a different picture taken at a different time on the same day - if you look at her arms she's adopting a different stance, the angle along the hallway is different.

O.

It's a bit odd though - in the photo with Andrew there is a framed picture over his shoulder on the wall and in the one without Andrew there is no picture on the wall.

[Outrider]

It's a bit odd though - in the photo with Andrew there is a framed picture over his shoulder on the wall and in the one without Andrew there is no picture on the wall.

It doesn't look odd at all, the second picture is taken from further forward and further left, and the picture is out of frame - if you look to the right of the doorway, the scope of the second shot doesn't even reach the corner, let alone show any of the wall where the picture is hung.

O.

[Spud]

It's not a fake, it's just a different picture taken at a different time on the same day - if you look at her arms she's adopting a different stance, the angle along the hallway is different.

O.

Ah, sorry - I linked to a cropped photo, which didn't show the door-surround. Just found an uncropped one in which it can be seen.

When you compare the lower part of both photos, you can faintly make out the outline of Virginia's left leg in the one with Ghislaine alone. It looks like Virginia has possibly been erased.

photo of all three

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I found this article on the matter of the photo - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/no-way-photo-of-prince-andrew-with-arm-around-accuser-virginia-giuffre-is-fake-photographer-who-copied-image-says-a4302716.html

I had not seen the 2 photos before, where you could compare them to each other.

According to the article we got Andrew saying it is a photo of a photo and that is what has been released to the public. We have a photographer who claims he saw the original and is convinced that a woman (teen or otherwise) could not be underhand enough to casually plant a fake photo in a group of photos, knowing it would be discovered. I am not sexist so if it's possible Andrew could have had sex with a trafficked minor then it is equally possible that Virginia could have doctored a photo. Women have been known to lie and make up allegations about people. That doesn't mean she wasn't trafficked and hasn't had a tough life dealing with the trauma of that.

The court document says the FBI received photos and they were scanned but doesn't say what the outcome of the investigation was and whether they confirmed that they had received an original un-doctored photo.

Then there is the mystery of the framed picture over Andrew's shoulder that has disappeared in the shot with Ghislaine alone.

Now I have seen both photos together it's not very convincing to me that the picture with Andrew is genuine - it's starting to look more fake the more I look at it, so yeah - I'll go with I don't know what to believe.

But it doesn't matter anymore as they both agreed a settlement, which means neither needs to go to court and have their personal lives raked over for the gratification of the media to sell stories. Like I said I would have settled in Andrew's position regardless of the truth. Court cases are about what you can prove and also about what you can reveal and suggest to damage people. There will be people who believe the accusations against Andrew and are unlikely to change their minds. There will be people who believe Andrew. And there will be people who just don't know.

In the current era of fake news, conspiracy theories etc even if something is true it can be easily dismissed and the world moves on to the next sensational news story.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It doesn't look odd at all, the second picture is taken from further forward and further left, and the picture is out of frame - if you look to the right of the doorway, the scope of the second shot doesn't even reach the corner, let alone show any of the wall where the picture is hung.

O.

I am referring to the picture to the left of the doorway, partially obscured by Andrew's shoulder and back - the one above his shoulder and to the left of his back.

[SteveH]

In This shot of Ghislaine by herself the entire door frame can be seen.
Here is the fake with the door frame completely missing except a little on the lower right side.

Hmmm... There does seem to be some jiggery-pokery going on. However, I'm more inclined to think that Andrew and his inamorata have been removed from one picture than that they've been added to the other. The version with la Maxwell on her own looks curiously empty. There is indeed an odd black spot on VG's left tit, but that could be anything.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yeah - not sure which photo may have been altered.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yeah - not sure which photo may have been altered.

Suspect the one with just her is altered - weird effects on her left profile as you look at her - the part which in the other photo is covered so would need to be added in. Also the picture behind Andrew - easier to completely erase it in a doctored photo than to try to recreate the part you cannot see, as there will be people who know what the picture actually is.

There was a similar situation with the Boris Xmas party photos where there was a crude attempt to remove the bottle of bubbly and the tinsel around the colleagues neck. The dead give-away was that in another photo the tinsel guy is clearly show to have a shirt with a collar, but you can't see the collar in this photo as it is covered by the tinsel. When the photo-alterers removed the tinsel they forgot to recreate the shirt collar (or perhaps it was too difficult to do).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Suspect the one with just her is altered - weird effects on her left profile as you look at her - the part which in the other photo is covered so would need to be added in. Also the picture behind Andrew - easier to completely erase it in a doctored photo than to try to recreate the part you cannot see, as there will be people who know what the picture actually is.

There was a similar situation with the Boris Xmas party photos where there was a crude attempt to remove the bottle of bubbly and the tinsel around the colleagues neck. The dead give-away was that in another photo the tinsel guy is clearly show to have a shirt with a collar, but you can't see the collar in this photo as it is covered by the tinsel. When the photo-alterers removed the tinsel they forgot to recreate the shirt collar (or perhaps it was too difficult to do).

Yes I think you're right. Now looking at it I think the one of Ghislaine by herself looks more fake.

Ghislaine's boobs look very weird and not as natural as in the photo with all 3 of them;
Her hand that is visible looks the same as in the photo with all 3 of them where her hands are clasped, but in the photo by herself the other hand is now missing;
Her top looks weirdly out of shape where it was covered before by Virgina's arm before;
There seems to be the edge of a chair back by the window in the space between Virginia's arm and her body that is missing in the photo of Ghislaine by herself.

[SweetPea]

Virginia Roberts was said to have had someone take the photograph with her own instamatic camera and that is why it was found amongst her photos. Guess we'll never know unless someone comes forward to verify.her claim.

[SweetPea]

Taking away all the legalities it was still bribery on Andrew's part to settle out of court. The old, 'I'll pay you a huge sum of money to shut-up and go away'.

[ekim]

Ghislaine's boobs look very weird and not as natural as in the photo with all 3 of them;

Three boobs?  Now that is weird. 

[Spud]

The court document says the FBI received photos and they were scanned but doesn't say what the outcome of the investigation was and whether they confirmed that they had received an original un-doctored photo.

Could there be a link between the FBI being involved, Bill Clinton being one of the people who visited Epstein and Hilary hoping to run for president again?

I found this by the Daily Mail. Virginia claimed the bath tub was Victorian and in the middle of the bathroom, but the size of the room as shown in a house plan proves this could not be true.

Also, she was over the age of consent in England, and she says she seduced him...

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Taking away all the legalities it was still bribery on Andrew's part to settle out of court. The old, 'I'll pay you a huge sum of money to shut-up and go away'.

It's a civil case so the parties are usually encouraged to settle out o court rather than push up the legal bills by going to court. Virginia would have only ever got money if she would have won her case. Here she gets less money but it's less risky for her than going to court where she might lose her case. 

If it was a criminal case then it would be a different matter for Andrew to pay her to not co-operate with the authorities to bring a criminal prosecution against him.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Three boobs?  Now that is weird. 

  Three people...but the way the photo is starting to look it could just as easily be three boobs.

[Spud]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Y1-KAUwaA
Infrared image analysis shows "virtually no flash light highlights on Andrew's face seen under infrared but can be seen on Virginia's face". Maybe the photo of Andrew was taken in daylight?

[SteveH]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Y1-KAUwaA
Infrared image analysis shows "virtually no flash light highlights on Andrew's face seen under infrared but can be seen on Virginia's face". Maybe the photo of Andrew was taken in daylight?

Or maybe the flash was pointing directly at her, and not at him. Why are you so keen to get the randy little polecat off the hook?

[Spud]

Or maybe the flash was pointing directly at her, and not at him.

Her face is brightly illuminated, his is not at all. They are definitely not the same picture, in my opinion.

Why are you so keen to get the randy little polecat off the hook?

He may be randy, but so are lots of people. You don't mind about them because they aren't royal. Andrew as a royal is expected to be 'perfect' (happily married etc); only a few royals are though. And being randy doesn't make this particular accusation true.
I don't know all the details available, but have seen enough to be sure that it is her that is guilty.
Lady Colin Campbell (not someone I can usually listen to) pointed out that the day in question was a cold one and that in the photo Virginia is wearing summer clothes, the same as she wore at Naomi Campbell's party in St Tropez, May 22. Thus it is reasonable to suspect that the photo is fake,
Virginia made up details about the bathroom, since proved false; she said they drank cocktails at a nightclub, also likely false as he is know to have been teetotal.

[ProfessorDavey]

Her face is brightly illuminated, his is not at all. They are definitely not the same picture, in my opinion.

And you are an expert, are you Spud.

The video you linked to provides zero information - there is no explanation whatsoever. There is nothing to demonstrate that this is somehow infrared, nor what this might mean were it to be. Given that this photo presumably wasn't taken using infrared sensitive film (or sensor) then what on earth is it supposed to show.

[Spud]

And you are an expert, are you Spud.

The video you linked to provides zero information - there is no explanation whatsoever. There is nothing to demonstrate that this is somehow infrared, nor what this might mean were it to be. Given that this photo presumably wasn't taken using infrared sensitive film (or sensor) then what on earth is it supposed to show.

It seems fairly clear that her face was brightly illuminated by something, whereas his wasn't. Someone else also thinks the photo of Andrew was taken in daylight.

[ProfessorDavey]

It seems fairly clear that her face was brightly illuminated by something, whereas his wasn't. Someone else also thinks the photo of Andrew was taken in daylight.

No it doesn't - even if that photo shows infrared, and there is no explanation why it should, why would the notion that her face looks a bit brighter with whatever filter has been used suggest what you claim. Just as likely is that her skin is somewhat paler and more reflective than his, as she is a teenager and he is a 50 year old.

And there is no evidence that the photo was captured using infrared sensitive film, so the notion that you can tell anything from the photo itself is seriously stretching credulity.

[Spud]

she is a teenager and he is a 50 year old

He was 41 I think. Infrared aside, what do you make of the 'silver lining' around his head? It is also around his backside, it obscures the lines on the wall in the background, if you zoom in. Not something I've found on genuine photos.

[ProfessorDavey]

He was 41 I think.

Hardly a major difference - he is over twice her age, so wouldn't be unexpected that they have different skin reflectiveness.

Infrared aside, what do you make of the 'silver lining' around his head? It is also around his backside, it obscures the lines on the wall in the background, if you zoom in. Not something I've found on genuine photos.

I have no idea - the 'silver lining' as you call it isn't in the original photo - it is only in this weird manipulated version of the photo. And given that neither you, nor the video clip explains what manipulation has been performed to generate this altered photo then it is impossible to speculate as to the significance or otherwise of anything that is apparently revealed by this manipulation.