Regardless of all the criticism of the analysis, or whether the analysis is "worth it": this post is a really interesting look into how someone that does photographic forensics professionally operates. I thought it was pretty nifty :)
Previous claims, which were more extensive, were refuted by independent review of professionals.
From the following article on other case: "The results of the expert analysis are in, and it looks like Hansen’s photo does indeed stand up to serious forensic scrutiny."
http://petapixel.com/2013/05/14/forensics-expert-claims-worl...
He's claiming the subject was fake. She has blood trickles drawn as if coming from wounds on her face (not spatter from someone else). Yet when he uncovered the original high resolution photo and zoomed in, there are clearly no wounds.
That's on top of the other issues with the paint looking more like paint than blood on close inspection. But the lack of wounds at the origin of the streams makes it very clear that the streams were painted on.
The photographer isn't explicitly implicated in this.. it's possible that he just saw her in the crowd and was tricked too. We don't know.