Hanson's ex: it's not her
18.03.2009

PAULINE Hanson's first husband says the woman shown posing in raunchy photographs was not his young bride, a view backed yesterday by the country's leading expert on forensic photography.
Walter Zagorski, who was married to Ms Hanson during the mid-1970s when the photographs were allegedly taken, said the person in the images was not Pauline, who was 16 when they wed.
Mr Zagorski said his former wife was very slim and the woman in the photographs, published in News Limited Sunday papers, had a ``fatter face'' with a different profile.
``The give-away is the nose -- Pauline's nose was always quite large and noticeable,'' he said.
``If I was asked to give my honest opinion, I would say that it is not Pauline in those photographs. The woman there looks a lot like her, but it is not her.''
Melbourne RMIT University associate professor Gale Spring said it was immediately obvious to him that the photographs were not of the One Nation founder, who is now 54.
``My impression was that other than the eyes and a bit of the mouth, the facial proportions were not right,'' Professor Spring said.
``I thought it had to be a case of somebody being out to get her or something like that.''
On Monday Ms Hanson, who is standing as an independent candidate in Saturday's Queensland election, denied that the photographs were of her.
A former soldier, John ``Jack'' Johnson, told Sydney's Sunday Telegraph that he took the photographs of a naked or scantily clad Ms Hanson in the mid-1970s, when she was about 19, at a Coffs Harbour resort.
Mr Johnson has since admitted he may have been wrong but has continued to insist he believed Ms Hanson was the subject of his photographs.
Professor Spring, who is often a key forensic witness in court cases, said the young woman in the photographs, especially one in which she faced the camera squarely, looked unlike Ms Hanson in some important ways. ``I've looked at probably millions of photographs and these just didn't fit,'' he said.
``The nose-mouth relationship was all wrong and the eyes-nose connection didn't match either.''
Professor Spring said he believed newspapers that published the photographs had been duped, but he could not say if this was done intentionally by Mr Johnson, who has said his memory is clouded by cancer treatment.
Forensic anatomist Meiya Sutisno, from the University of Technology, Sydney, agreed the photographs were not of Ms Hanson.
She told the Seven Network's Today Tonight that the distance between the eyes, and the size of the nose of the woman, were different to Ms Hanson.
Sunday Telegraph editor Neil Breen continued to insist yesterday that the photographs were of Ms Hanson.
``I have to say that I can't look at those pictures without wondering how someone else could look at them and think it was anyone but Pauline Hanson,'' he said.