Did Kate Alter Photos to Make Joshua Look Sicker?

Kate was very critical of McKmama for allegedly altering her photos.

But did Kate do the same?

An analysis of many images — particularly those taken when Joshua was said to be terminal — revealed that most had a blue/green cast and washed-out colors, which tend to make Joshua look unwell.

The blue/green cast is very apparent when the image is viewed side-by-side with a color-corrected version. We did not alter the saturation levels; only the color balance.

When color-corrected to remove the blue/green cast, Joshua’s coloring looks more normal, albeit rather pale.

Here are a few comparison images.


Joshua Color CorrectedJoshua Color Corrected

Note that the blue/green tint is not present in many older images from 2012 and earlier.


So did Kate alter Joshua’s images to make him look sicker?

We did examine the exif data on confirmed originals. Picasa — an image storage and editing program — was listed in the exif data. It’s possible she used this to edit the images or she may have simply exported the images without editing them. It’s impossible to know for certain.

So for now, the jury’s out on this one.

NOTE — One comparison image has been removed pending legal consult to ensure it’s covered under fair use doctrine.


17 thoughts on “Did Kate Alter Photos to Make Joshua Look Sicker?

  1. I am the wedding photographer and you do not have the right to publish the photo of Joshua in the white shirt with his mother on your site. Please have it removed promptly. I retain copyright. . If you publish any other photos I have the copyright to, I will pursue legal charges.

    • Certainly. I’m happy to remove this pending legal consult form our attorney.

      I believe this is covered under fair usage, which you’ll know about if you’re well-versed in copyright law.

      “Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.”

      I believe this particular instance of republication is covered under commentary, criticism and news reporting.

      Notably, you cannot pursue legal “charges” as copyright infringement is not a criminal offense when it entails a not-for-profit entity.

      I shall consult our attorney before restoring the image to our site.

  2. Personally, I can’t see how a “color correction” was made without actually having any exif data to interpret. The color “corrected” versions look oversaturated to me.

    Furthermore, Kate is in jail and awaiting trial for some very serious charges. She can’t hurt her children anymore. I find it extremely disturbing that you (Madeleine) who has spent an inordinate amount of time on Topix stating how much you care for the children’s well-being, would post pictures of a minor child who has already been through hell.

    Shame on you.

  3. Just to note that all of the details contained here and on the thread discussion are taken from Kate’s public display of information she posted.
    It is not new news, it has all been seen before because Kate put it out for the public.

  4. Most was not put out for public view but for a limited audience in forums that required membership. She set her caringbridge to be invite only and not public as well. So that is not really true. You and others are taking from sites that had privacy settings other than public and making them public. Even if Kate did make things public, she did take things down. So does that make it ok for YOU to make them public? I think it’s rude and inconsiderate of the children.

    • None of those pictures have been pulled from sites with private settings. They are all pictures that were on CB, pictures that were/are on other blogs or on YouCaring asking for money.

      Comment moderation has been enabled. So comments that are considered incendiary, rude, include personal attacks or divulge information that should not be made public are not posted.

    • You seem awfully invested in this for just being the wedding photographer. I for one (having been scammed once myself on a cancer forum) appreciate this type of analysis on the part of the person running this blog. Getting this info out into the public domain makes it just a little bit harder for the next scam artist/criminal to pull off this kind of thing. And really…you think this is going to add even an iota of pain to the incredible agony inflicted upon them by their own mother?

      • Kate has been accused, but not convicted so I will not agree with any assessments of “the incredible agony inflicted upon them by their own mother”. That has yet to be proven she did anything wrong and was not simply following doctors orders. As for my interest as the “wedding photographer”, I was their photographer more than once and had considered myself to be a friend of Kate at one time. I choose to withhold any comments about her or her family for good reason. Primarily this is the internet and hawks exist that would like to twist anything.

        I find it interesting the amount of interest by people who have only known Kate via the internet and message boards and have never ever met her or her wonderful kids in person. I find that a bit disturbing. Madi is very obsessed with her yet has never met the woman.

        I choose to wait for a verdict. I will continue to pray for her children and her family. Despite her guilt or innocence, she and her children don’t deserve to be broadcast all over the internet on ugly forums like Topix where people assume much, make up stories, and speculate as to the sexual orientation of her son or accuse his wife of being a mail order bride. Garbage.

        I do have copyright of photos I took and will request their removal from these toxic forums. I want no part in the ongoing drive to be prosecution and jury like others apparently are attempting via this forum and Topix.

  5. I also find it interesting that a comment by Mary and a comment I made following her comment have disappeared from this page.

    • There are currently no comments in moderation. All comments that have been made have been approved. As far as your comment about the copyright, I do not see that comment anywhere. I did not even receive and email for that comment.

      And for whatever reason I am not sure why but Mary’s comment automatically went into moderation before moderation was ever turned on.

    • Lisa, I totally agree that her children don’t deserve to be plastered all over the internet. It’s truly unfortunate that Kate chose to take that route in the first place.
      And seriously, “just following doctor’s orders”?? I think it’s pretty clear that there was way more than that going on. Did the doctors order Kate to abandon her very fragile, adopted child?
      Anyway, this is kind of a pointless conversation, I do hope you come back and give your opinion on Kate’s innocence after the trial ends.

  6. Hooo wheee, Lisa Lisa…. asking “which fragile child”, in addition to earlier comments you made, shows me that you really haven’t followed all this long enough to know what you’re talking about. I appreciate that you seem to genuinely care about the Parker kids. We all do. But beyond that, you really don’t seem to know much about what we’ve been reading from Kate HERSELF for many years, on NON-private boards. You may want to just quit posting so you don’t look more clueless. No offense, you’re just not in the loop.

  7. What exactly is your problem? As an RN who advocates for abused children I have to wonder why you’re so invested in derailing the intent of this blog which has been essential in saving the lives of the children your friend was so intent on destroying.

  8. My post above was in response to Lisa who is more concerned about her copy right issues than saving a child. Actually multiple children who are all now thriving since being removed from her ‘friends’ ((cough)) care.

  9. Adopting Agency: We are registered and legitimate adoption agency. we spring up young babies for adoptions, we are online 24hrs all day or night to help single mothers and parent to adopt new babies, both white or African babies,girls or boys twin this child adoption ranges from a week old babies to 8years. try our corporations today and you will have us as the best adoption agency world wide. adopt babies from us today and feel the bitterness of having much more kids from us.; Warms regards; email us for a baby adoption today at: SHERRYCHILDADOPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s