That's the widest shot I could find of the original image. Note the depression in the wall at Stanley Armour's shoulder. Note the course of the mortar in the wall blocks. His hand supposedly on Madelyn's shoulder has his fingers in exactly the same position as his other hand, but the hand appears to have been reversed. Check the fingers.
Now we have a man sitting close to the place where Madelyn was shown sitting. From this you can compare the course of the wall blocks/mortar, which doesn't appear to match the previous image. The bump is still in the wall at the top, and it's the same tree, the tree seems to be a little further to the right, but it's grown in the time between the photographs.
Phil removed zero (and the tree)and that shows how the Dunhams were probably shown sitting side by side, but there's the question of where? The Dunhams might well have been placed in that position and the wall blocks needed 'reconstruction' to accommodate the third party. Have I put that badly? Maybe. There was a wall, there was a tree, there was an image of the Dunhams, they were separated, then zero was placed between them. However, if the Dunhams had never been photographed on that bench, then the wall would not have needed 'reconstruction' - would it?
The location from another angle. How does this need fit into the narrative? Are we being shown a relationship between zero and the Dunhams which no longer existed?
Apologies to those who abhor my penchant for images. There's really to other way.
