I'm pretty much convinced at this point that the "exposé" that the National Enquirer just published is totally fake. (Not that this comes as much of a surprise to anyone.)
Conclusive?
First and foremost, from the looks of the John Edwards "headshot" towards the center of the page, he's either sporting an incredibly long neck (which might not be unusual for our favorite Silky Pony)—or, judging by the slight seam mark at the center of his neck (highlighted), his head has been stitched on to somebody else's body.
Which could explain why the picture of "John Edwards" holding the baby has been blurred using Photoshop, rather than being an "out of focus" shot as the Enquirer claims.
Reviving one of my illustration photos from previously, we reproduce what I'll call the "Not John Edwards" effect:
Sadly, it is not.
For the record, that's Reduce Noise (maxed out, removing the JPEG artifacts); then, Lens Blur (0/8/100/360/61/255); then, Add Noise (3%).
Alternately, you can use the "Dust & Scratches" filter, which results in this photo, which is also similar to the blurred shot that the Enquirer claims is a "spy" photo.
I guess this means that the body double that they used for the shot didn't look exactly like Edwards?
Anyway, while I'm no fan of John Edwards, I don't think that we're well served by accepting evidence against him that's forged. Even if it fits what we want to believe.
If the Enquirer wishes to step up to the plate and publish high-resolution originals on their website, perhaps we can reconsider the evidence. Until such time, I'm reluctantly declaring their evidence so far to be completely fake.
(h/t The blog full of whining trolls that I still refuse to link ;) )
Especially considering Edwards has now come out and admitted the affair I would say there is a pretty high likelihood the pics are genuine.