Duke and Duchess of Cambridge: Tour of Australia - April 16-25, 2014

[Dman]

Kate is a public person. The picture was taken when on/dressed for public duty. The photographer did not harrass her/tried to photograph under her skirt. I don't understand how this can be a breach of privacy or the media's fault. As this has not happened for the first time, for me all this is about Kate not understanding/refusing to wear wardrobe that fits her rank & position.

The problem is the photographer and magazine and newspapers deliberately searched for this photo and published it to gain some attention, money and juicy headlines. It was a stupid thing to do and very much disrespectful to Catherine. Catherine conducted herself with nothing but professionalism as the Duchess of Cambridge and future Princess of Wales/Queen on that trip and all her other official engagements.

I couldn't be a photographer and take a picture of something like that and then go and publish it. These things happen to ladies every now and then and they don't mean for it to happen. It would be my job to take that unflattering picture and toss it. I wouldn't want to disrespect the person I'm photographing and wouldn't want it to happen to any of my female family members if they were in the spotlight. It's about showing some decency and respect for other people.

 

[wyevale]

Clearly you are too honourable a person to be a member of the press...Dman !

 

[Ish]

I have no problem with valid critism but to call someone dumb, thick for a wardrobe malfuction is out the question. Catherine dresses in what she feels comfortable in. Maybe it's time to hire a dresser?

This is just where I stand on this issue.

The first time Kate had a wardrobe malfunction it could have been explained as being a simple mistake in dress. A couple times where she's had similar malfunctions due to wind it could be explained that it was unexpectedly windy.

However, as she keeps on having the same problem while wearing the same type of dress and in the same type of venues, makes it look like it's more than just a simple accident.

To me, how this reads is either Catherine isn't following basic logic - windy days + flimsy skirt = wardrobe malfunction, combined with airports and/or helicopters = windy days - or she's deliberately courting this kind of attention. This type of incident has happened enough times to Catherine that it no longer comes off as being a simple accident or oversight.

 

[Rudolph]

The photographers attempts at justifying publishing the pic by donating the proceeds to charity have backfired as well.

Mayor Mark Greenhill of the Blue Mountains has called the photograph exploitative and gratuitous and will not accept a penny in any way.

 

[sophie25]

In regards to the picture of her walking down the catwalk, I did NOT see the other picture that you are referring to, so if you have it, please send it here so we all can see and where you there to see this other picture being taken?
Security guards do not always have to be in eye shot of people that they are guarding......heavens, would they go to the toilet with them, be in their bedroom with, while they are changing clothes, I really don't think all security guards are with people that they are guarding every second of the day and night..........this was PRIVATE PROPERTY, THEIR PRIVATE TIME, THEY WERE NOT WORKING..........nothing more needs to be said. If Catherine or anybody else in this world wants to run around naked in their private time in their private space who are we to say anything about it.....would you like a camera in your bedroom or up your skirt? I don't think so!

I'll post it then when I get the chance but if anyone can't wait till then you can go to the Getty Images search engine and type 'Kate Middleton St Andrew's fashion show' and you will get it there.

 

[Baroness of Books]

I remember seeing that photo as well, Angela, but it didn't have as much publicity as the catwalk one.

 

[Dman]

Dman, all you're doing here is ignoring what other people are saying and repeatedly blaming the photographers and making excuses for Catherine. This is not constructive to the discussion and is rather condescending behaviour.

The photographer was taking a bunch of pictures of Catherine. She was not some paparazzi hounding her in a private moment, she is a legitimate member of a legitimate press doing her job. Given as the story is that she didn't even realize what picture she had until some time after the event it's very likely that she didn't deliberately take the picture. Given as she tried to donate the proceeds from the sale of the picture to Blue Mountain means that she likely wasn't trying to profit from the picture - if she was, she wouldn't be trying to donate the money.

The fact remains though, that Catherine was not in a private moment when this occurred. She wasn't sunbathing in a private estate well away from a road. She wasn't on a beach in a private island. She wasn't in her own home. The photographers did not invade her privacy in any way when they were taking pictures of her here. Furthermore, this is not an upskirt photo. The photographers did not go to any lengths in order to get a picture up Kate's skirt. They did not go to some length to take a picture of something that was not being displayed. Kate had a wardrobe malfunction in public, while attending a public duty, and photographers happened to be there (as they are wont to do for these official, public events) and someone took a photo of it.

What is distressing to me is not the fact that this photo was taken or published, but rather the fact that this is not Catherine's first time around helicopters. Catherine is presumably an intelligent woman who should be capable of going "every time I ride a helicopter it's windy when I get out." Catherine is presumably an intelligent woman who should be capable of making the logical conclusion that wind + a light skirt = her skirt blowing up - it's happened to her enough times at this point that if she hasn't figured it out then she is not an intelligent woman. There is a very basic cause and effect here - if you wear a light skirt when it's windy you risk having it fly up on you, and if you're going to be taking a helicopter ride then you're going to be around some pretty strong wind at least when you're around the helicopter.

Kate knows all this - she's been around enough helicopters to figure out that they create very strong winds, and she's had skirt problems around them in the past. Yet she continues to wear flimsy skirts when she's riding helicopters. The fact that the rest of her time at Blue Mountain was without issue is irrelevant - Kate still chose to wear a flimsy skirt when she knew she would be taking a helicopter, when she knew she would be photographed getting on and off of it, and when she knew that helicopters create strong winds which have a tendency to blow up skirts.

To those still insisting that it's not a big deal at all, I question how you would feel if Michelle Obama had a wardrobe malfunction while on duty. Or Hillary Clinton. Or Angela Merkel. Or some woman who is politically involved in some way but whom you don't idolize. Do they get a free pass too, or are they to be held a bit accountable for their actions (particularly if, like Kate, they were to have the issue repeat numerous times in a relatively short period of time)?

The photographer took that one photo and the magazine published for the exciting headlines and the money. They most likely thought twice about the backlash and attention and decided to donate the money instead of keeping it. Even an Australian newspaper decided to publish the picture. The whole idea of taking that one photo and purposely publishing it was in very bad taste, low and just plain nasty.

Catherine did nothing wrong with her wardrobe on this trip and engagement to the Blue Mountains. She didn't even suffer a wardrobe malfunction during the engagement. She was even pictured holding her dress very nice and gracefully during her leaving the helicopter. She was very smart in knowing the wind would get the best of her in that moment. She also boarded the helicopter without an incident as well. So let's not act like Catherine was just a walking disaster during that engagement. The picture was taken and shouldn't have been published period.

The only time I think Catherine made a major wardrobe malfunction was when she wore that very light and airy yellow dress in Canada. I think she should've wore an overcoat during her arrival to the airport and taken it off once she arrived at the official engagement.

This isn't about getting anyone a free pass. If this had happened to our First Lady or Hillary Clinton, I would be outraged that someone decided to take those pictures and publish them to make some money. Catherine nor any of those high profile ladies want this kind of thing to happen and try hard to prevent it from happening but when it happens it shouldn't be photographed and exploited for financial gain. That's wrong on all levels. I have too much respect for women to sit back and vilify the women who went through this incident and make tons of excuses for the media and encourage they're behavior.

 

[Nordic]

To those still insisting that it's not a big deal at all, I question how you would feel if Michelle Obama had a wardrobe malfunction while on duty. Or Hillary Clinton. Or Angela Merkel. Or some woman who is politically involved in some way but whom you don't idolize. Do they get a free pass too, or are they to be held a bit accountable for their actions (particularly if, like Kate, they were to have the issue repeat numerous times in a relatively short period of time)?

Or, if this had been some other Princess? Let's say, Charlene, Mary or someone else?
I'm pretty certain, that most reactions would have been very different than they are in this thread.

 

[Dman]

The photographers attempts at justifying publishing the pic by donating the proceeds to charity have backfired as well.

Mayor Mark Greenhill of the Blue Mountains has called the photograph exploitative and gratuitous and will not accept a penny in any way.

I'm glad the Mayor of the Blue Mountains did that. The photographer, magazine and Australian newspaper behavior was just gross and the attempt to donate the money from the picture a charity was pretty sick, IMO.

 

[soapstar]

You are missing my point TLLK. In the 1980's even without the Internet, Sarah was raked over the coals for allowing this sort of thing to happen once or twice. She was called vulgar and a disgrace to the BRF because the public saw her...underwear, garter and hose. The condemnation in the British press in particular was extremely nasty. Even without the Internet, people who find this sort of thing embarrassing found it inexcusable.

If we saw as much of Beatrice's or Eugenie's private areas today as we have seen of Kate, who honestly believes the press and public would be any easier on them than they were of their mother??

Apparently it's not so vulgar and inexcusable when the Royal lady is popular, photogenic and has a nice rear end.

I don't know, I don't see a double standard. I've seen Kate being raked over the coals quite a bit - she's been called an idiot, a disgrace, vulgar, an attention seeker, etc. And the condemnation hasn't just come from posters on the internet. The press has also written and talked unfavorably about Kate and these mishaps.

I'm sure there were plenty of people that didn't blame Fergie, or think she was a disgrace to the BRF. As TLLK says, the internet wasn't big when Fergie was in her early 30's. If she had grown up with twitter and blogs, and all of the social media and instant news, than the coverage of her mishaps wouldn't have been so one sided. The coverage would have more than likely been the same as it is with Kate. Some blaming her, while others not.

Both Beatrice and Eugenie have had quite a few mishaps. I've seen photos of Beatrice's underwear and even her bare bottom, yet the press hasn't been any harder on her for it. If we want to take a look at double standards, we should look at how the media/public view exposed body parts in royal men as opposed to the royal women.

 

[TLLK]

You are missing my point TLLK. In the 1980's even without the Internet, Sarah was raked over the coals for allowing this sort of thing to happen once or twice. She was called vulgar and a disgrace to the BRF because the public saw her...underwear, garter and hose. The condemnation in the British press in particular was extremely nasty. Even without the Internet, people who find this sort of thing embarrassing found it inexcusable.

If we saw as much of Beatrice's or Eugenie's private areas today as we have seen of Kate, who honestly believes the press and public would be any easier on them than they were of their mother??

Apparently it's not so vulgar and inexcusable when the Royal lady is popular, photogenic and has a nice rear end.

I understood your point clearly, I simply did not agree with you. Yes people stated that she was vulgar, but had the media chosen to share the thoughts of those who found the photos to be intrusive or opportunistic, the public would have heard those opinions as well. The British press chose to make those statement because it also sold more papers/magazines.

There are people who have no issue with sharing these types of photos with the public in order to humiliate someone or to gain a profit.

Then there are those who condemn these types of activities no matter if the subject is a private person or public figure. I know which side I belong to.

 

[ladongas]

Here's what I think about it

Suppose you are taking a number of photographs at an outdoor public event in your hometown. Mrs. Festus Eustace, the president of the local university, has her skirt blown up and her body is exposed. You have been taking photographs continuously throught the event, and you realize you have a picture of Mrs. Eustace's buttocks. What do you do?
a. destroy the photograph
b. sell it to the university newspaper
c. hawk it to the local news station
d. Contact Mrs. E and offer to sell it to her.

I know what an honorable person would do.

 

[TLLK]

Or, if this had been some other Princess? Let's say, Charlene, Mary or someone else?
I'm pretty certain, that most reactions would have been very different than they are in this thread.

I'd give Chancellor Merkel, Mrs. Obama, and the former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton etc.. a pass because these types of photographs being shared publicly are designed to embarrass another human being.

The Royal Order of Sartorial Splendor had a blog entry devoted to these types of incidents involving members of various royal families.
If you believe that these types of photos should not printed or shared publicly, then it shouldn't matter who is the target.

 

[TLLK]

Suppose you are taking a number of photographs at an outdoor public event in your hometown. Mrs. Festus Eustace, the president of the local university, has her skirt blown up and her body is exposed. You have been taking photographs continuously throught the event, and you realize you have a picture of Mrs. Eustace's buttocks. What do you do?
a. destroy the photograph
b. sell it to the university newspaper
c. hawk it to the local news station
d. Contact Mrs. E and offer to sell it to her.

I know what an honorable person would do.

Thank you! Excellent statement. My choice is A-destroy the photo.

 

[Skippyboo]

The Sun published pictures of Angela Merkel changing out of a swimsuit bottom exposing most of her bottom. The photo of Kate was also published to embarrass her.

 

[soapstar]

The photographer was taking a bunch of pictures of Catherine. She was not some paparazzi hounding her in a private moment, she is a legitimate member of a legitimate press doing her job. Given as the story is that she didn't even realize what picture she had until some time after the event it's very likely that she didn't deliberately take the picture. Given as she tried to donate the proceeds from the sale of the picture to Blue Mountain means that she likely wasn't trying to profit from the picture - if she was, she wouldn't be trying to donate the money.

Just wanted to point out that the photographer wasn't a member of the press, nor was she doing her job. She's a local travel agent that came out to the event.

 

[LadyGabrielle]

Never ceases to amaze me what people will do to make a few bucks. The photo should be destroyed although we know it probably won't be.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[kakieanne]

Photographers and magazines are never going to change. They are in the business to make money. They have done nothing wrong. Their job was to take Catherine's picture, her job was to have her picture taken. The photographer should destroy a picture of Catherine with her skirt blown up? Why? It's not like this is the first time its happened. If it bothered her, she is intelligent enough to do something about it. She either doesn't care or she likes showing off her body.

 

[Dman]

Catherine did do something about her dress when disembarking from the helicopter by holding down her dress. She did what she was suppose to do. The photographer and other media outlets decided to get ugly and that was wrong.

 

[cinrit]

I have read that the photographer said she was going to donate the money to Blue Mountain. Or maybe that she was going to donate a portion of it. I have read that the mayor said he would not accept any money obtained from the sale of this photograph. I have not read that the photographer actually made the offer. Has she?

Michelle Obama's skirt has flown up a few times boarding or leaving a plane. It even flew up once when posing for a photo with the Queen and Prince Philip. None of those should have been published, either. I agree that because Kate was in a public area, there may not have been a breach of privacy. But I believe there was a breach of decency. Had I taken the picture and came across it (by accident) out of dozens/hundreds of others, my first instinct would be to delete it. I don't understand when photos of this type became acceptable.

 

[Winnie]

well, if I had her body, I would be pretty unaffected by the pics too!

So far every man I showed photo to [most over 55] agreed that she should be proud of that body. Me, I think this entire broo-ha is quite silly. So she wears a thong and the wind lifted her skirt. I been to many Scottish events when kilts were lifted [have photos to prove] and saw a bit more than bums. Seeing a person's behind will not change the world. No worse than some royals in their bikinis.

 

[Winnie]

Just wanted to point out that the photographer wasn't a member of the press, nor was she doing her job. She's a local travel agent that came out to the event.

Thank you. I was wondering when someone was going to have the guts to correct this story. I have been waiting. This was just a spiteful act to make money while she blamed the media. Quite scummy

 

[SElizabeth]

The problem is the photographer and magazine and newspapers deliberately searched for this photo and published it to gain some attention, money and juicy headlines. It was a stupid thing to do and very much disrespectful to Catherine. Catherine conducted herself with nothing but professionalism as the Duchess of Cambridge and future Princess of Wales/Queen on that trip and all her other official engagements.

I couldn't be a photographer and take a picture of something like that and then go and publish it. These things happen to ladies every now and then and they don't mean for it to happen. It would be my job to take that unflattering picture and toss it. I wouldn't want to disrespect the person I'm photographing and wouldn't want it to happen to any of my female family members if they were in the spotlight. It's about showing some decency and respect for other people.

WONDERFUL COMMENT, and the woman who took this picture and sold it to make money has no morals and decency in her. I in good consciousness could not do this to another woman regardless of who she might be or how much money I would get.......I whole hardly believe in decency. So what if she was not the pazz, she still has no grounds for doing this other then making a fast buck. So some say she is out of the country, where, selling more pictures somewhere...........And I am so glad the mayor stood his ground and refused the money, look at it this way, she is going to have to live with herself for the rest of her days knowing she is nothing but a low life who values the dollar more then decency and morals. I would not want to be in her shoes for all the money in the world.

 

[Roslyn]

And I am so glad the mayor stood his ground and refused the money, look at it this way, she is going to have to live with herself for the rest of her days knowing she is nothing but a low life who values the dollar more then decency and morals. I would not want to be in her shoes for all the money in the world.

Yeah! I'm sure she's losing sleep over it, worrying about how horrible she's been.

 

[SElizabeth]

Yeah! I'm sure she's losing sleep over it, worrying about how horrible she's been.

Your so right, it just goes to show her true character, a low life, with no morals at all and no sense of decency. I just am so glad that people like that are not in my life, I have no place/time in my life for fools/idiots who prey upon others for their own benefit or greed or whatever. Just wasn't brought up like that.......for those that are and those that approve of their actions, go ahead, I lose no sleep over it and I can look myself in the face and be okay that I am not someone like her.

 

[Roslyn]

Your so right, it just goes to show her true character, a low life, with no morals at all and no sense of decency. I just am so glad that people like that are not in my life, I have no place/time in my life for fools/idiots who prey upon others for their own benefit or greed or whatever. Just wasn't brought up like that.......for those that are and those that approve of their actions, go ahead, I lose no sleep over it and I can look myself in the face and be okay that I am not someone like her.

Well I clearly am also a low life with no morals at all and no sense of decency, since I would have done exactly the same thing, and since it is likely I would not have offered the proceeds to local causes I am even worse than her. I do take issue with the suggestion I am a fool or an idiot though, and I also take issue with the allegation the photographer preyed upon Kate, for Kate was attending a public engagement at which she would have expected to be photographed and she has only herself to blame for paying the price for wearing inappropriate or no underclothing.

And I assure you I have no trouble looking at myself in the mirror or sleeping.

 

[SElizabeth]

Well I clearly am also a low life with no morals at all and no sense of decency, since I would have done exactly the same thing, and since it is likely I would not have offered the proceeds to local causes I am even worse than her. I do take issue with the suggestion I am a fool or an idiot though, and I also take issue with the allegation the photographer preyed upon Kate, for Kate was attending a public engagement at which she would have expected to be photographed and she has only herself to blame for paying the price for wearing inappropriate or no underclothing.

And I assure you I have no trouble looking at myself in the mirror or sleeping.

Some people have a conscious and some don't so *To each his own*, I say............

 

[Roslyn]

Some people have a conscious and some don't so *To each his own*, I say............

I have a "conscious", and I have a conscience, too, which I suspect is the word you were looking for. You and I have different views about some things, which is fine as far as I am concerned since I think life would be boring if we all agreed. But I must take issue with your implication that those who hold different views to you have no conscience.

 

[Ish]

Duke & Duchess of Cambridge: Tour of Australia- the Australian Leg 16-25 Apri...

Some people have a conscious and some don't so *To each his own*, I say............

How is this not having a conscience?

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. To accuse the woman who took this picture of preying on Kate in some way is a gross exaggeration that screams misogyny and implies that Catherine is this perfect being who is being needlessly attacked for her actions and must be protected.

The photographer didn't go out of her way to take a picture of Catherine's behind. Instead, she went somewhere where Catherine was working (or at least traveling to/from her work on a very publicized work tour) and had a wardrobe malfunction. the photographer was taking pictures of a very famous woman who was engaging in a public engagement and happened to get a shot of her having a public wardrobe malfunction that occurred on a public engagement

It was not Catherine's first such wardrobe malfunction, nor was it even the first one that happened on this tour. Just, what a week? two weeks? before Catherine had had a very similar wardrobe malfunction which was live streamed on the Internet and almost resulted in her dropping her infant child down stairs while disembarking from a plane. Now not all that long after, Catherine's showing that she doesn't get that airports plus dresses that aren't weighed down don't go together. And someone happened to get a picture of it because she is a well photographed public individual on a public event where people are there for the purpose of photographing her. All of which she knows very well.

Some time later upon realizing the photo that she had the woman who took it decided to sell it, then tried to donate the proceeds for it. She did not sell this photo for the purpose of profiting from it, otherwise she would not have tried to donate the money. Instead, she likely realized that this is a photo which tells something about the type of person Catherine is, the way she presents herself in public while engaging in official, public duties, and representing a nation's head of state and the monarch. This isn't misogyny, this isn't a lack of conscience, or morals, this is a case of someone trying to draw attention to a woman who is consistenty failing to present herself in a manner that is appropriate for her station and the duties she is performing and respectful for the institution (the monarchy) and the people (both in terms of the Queen, and the actual citizens of the Queen's realms) that she is representing.

But of course, rather than actually even acknowledging any of that, we should just accuse the photographer of being without morals and any who think that Catherine's behaviour and/or dress was inappropriate of being a misogamist. God forbid we actual look at Catherine's actions and question them.

 

[SElizabeth]

How is this not having a conscience?

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. To accuse the woman who took this picture of preying on Kate in some way is a gross exaggeration that screams misogyny and implies that Catherine is this perfect being who is being needlessly attacked for her actions and must be protected.

The photographer didn't go out of her way to take a picture of Catherine's behind. Instead, she went somewhere where Catherine was working (or at least traveling to/from her work on a very publicized work tour) and had a wardrobe malfunction. the photographer was taking pictures of a very famous woman who was engaging in a public engagement and happened to get a shot of her having a public wardrobe malfunction that occurred on a public engagement

It was not Catherine's first such wardrobe malfunction, nor was it even the first one that happened on this tour. Just, what a week? two weeks? before Catherine had had a very similar wardrobe malfunction which was live streamed on the Internet and almost resulted in her dropping her infant child down stairs while disembarking from a plane. Now not all that long after, Catherine's showing that she doesn't get that airports plus dresses that aren't weighed down don't go together. And someone happened to get a picture of it because she is a well photographed public individual on a public event where people are there for the purpose of photographing her. All of which she knows very well.

Some time later upon realizing the photo that she had the woman who took it decided to sell it, then tried to donate the proceeds for it. She did not sell this photo for the purpose of profiting from it, otherwise she would not have tried to donate the money. Instead, she likely realized that this is a photo which tells something about the type of person Catherine is, the way she presents herself in public while engaging in official, public duties, and representing a nation's head of state and the monarch. This isn't misogyny, this isn't a lack of conscience, or morals, this is a case of someone trying to draw attention to a woman who is consistenty failing to present herself in a manner that is appropriate for her station and the duties she is performing and respectful for the institution (the monarchy) and the people (both in terms of the Queen, and the actual citizens of the Queen's realms) that she is representing.

But of course, rather than actually even acknowledging any of that, we should just accuse the photographer of being without morals and any who think that Catherine's behaviour and/or dress was inappropriate of being a misogamist. God forbid we actual look at Catherine's actions and question them.

First let me say that I DID NOT SAY THE PERSON THAT TOOK THE PICTURE WAS STALKING HER......LET'S GET THAT CLEAR OKAY,
I just happen to think that the person that took this picture should HAVE HAD THE DECENCY OF DESTROYING THE PICTURE WHEN SHE FOUND IT which she didn't so to me(my opinion) is that she is not a person with high moral character at all, anyone and I mean ANYONE who takes a picture of a woman butt or any other part of her body and sells it is of low moral standards.....period! I don't care what age or date we live in, there is something called *human decency* in this world and she should not have sold that picture regardless of what the circumstances are...so what if Catherine's skirt below up, who are we to tell her what underwear to wear, (that is the standards that people are setting for her, we did not see her entire butt, so maybe there was some type of underwear there, and until I see THE ENTIRE BUTT NAKED, I really can't/shouldn't say anything about wearing whatever it is people wear today.
Catherine could be out to a garden party and the wind blew up her skirt, is everyone around there going to take her picture to see what she is wearing, I sure in the hell hope not. *NOBODY* has the right to invade another person's body with a camera or hand or anything else. Can't this woman go out side without being afraid of a damn camera and some idiot taking her picture of her butt covered or not? Can't she walk down a street and feel safe and secure regardless of who she is? I guess we WOMEN are all fair game for the fools and idiots of this world that want to crawl up/ hide in the bushes, go to public events and sneak around waiting for a camera in out private parts. Time for men to walk around with something hanging out and being photographed, okay?

I just don't believe that there are so many people that approve of this type of behavior from people with a camera and think because she married William she is subject to this type of evilness just because this has happened before.......how many times does it take anyone in this world to learn a lessons........more then once and sure in the hell more then 3/4 times. I think that anyone who is bad mouthing Catherine should take a darn hard look at themselves before they throw stones at her. Nobody is perfect and yet it seems we except her to be perfect.......

You don't know personally if she did this to make money, yet I would bet my last dollar she did, why, because if she didn't want to make money then she would have destroyed the picture...that is the whole point. What is her motive for selling the picture, sure to donate the money to charity and I have huge golden crown from the Queen's jewels to sell you! I am not stupid about the human race.........everything comes down to MONEY, PURE AND SIMPLE THESE DAYS..........NOTHING ELSE. Until the person who took the picture says otherwise I will hold on to my belief.......I am sure any ****DECENT PERSON**** WHO HAD THAT PICTURE WOULD HAVE DESTORYED IT, NOT SOLD IT,.....THAT'S WHAT GETS ME...........WHY SELL THE PICTURE IN THE FIRST PLACE? She wanted money, she got it, she wanted another 15 minutes of fame, she got it, she wanted attention from the world, she got it and now I hope she suffers her own guilt for doing this to another woman...........she sure in the heck would not like it done to her I bet! I am done with this...........I really don't give a darn who doesn't like my opinions, we all are different and should be! I guess this has been another learning experience for me because I just don't want to believe the world is so filled with so much hate and jealousy to go after a woman who is in the position she is in.....all for what? And don't use the excuse that it's okay to do this because this has happened before..........so what!