Replies

I don’t think it is a set up. I think the child was somehow able to pour it all over her front. I’ll bet her back is not painted. The arms show that she reached down into the bucket, leaving her shoulders and face bare. That is why only the edge of her hair is painted. You can see her artwork on the fireplace and her footsteps across the floor.

You're reaching . . . There is no way a child playing with paint won't get it on her face. Children always touch their faces.. . or the tops of their heads. The symmetric adult hand sized bare spots on each upper arm show she was placed in the bucket. The foot prints are not steps because they are equally imprinted and don't lose definition as the paint wears off. Instead the steps are equal with each impression. There are no distinctive drips as she moved across the room, yet there ARE drips where she is posed for the photograph where she was put down and, in my considered opinion, told to stand. There are no runs down her legs from what would have been sopped underwear. All of these are red flags to me.

Your assumption that her back was not covered is just that, an assumption. No child would be so carefully, completely covered except on her face by herself. Hurt hair shows signs of just being just having brushed against her paint wet shoulders. There is so much about this that was staged starting with the drips of paint below the can's lid on the hearth.