Police do this sort of tracking all of the time when they find tire tracks or with shoe prints. If the tire or the shoe is unique enough, the manufacturer may be able to provide a list of all of the people in a region who has bought it and through that list, they can narrow down the owner. It does not matter if the girl was the one who was the victim, the girls parents will know the identity of the place the photos were taken.
JMO, but I think they're dealing with the dress because the other kids outfits aren't festive and pretty much mundane.
We're dealing with a camera that got donated to a Thrift Store. For all we know the little girls dress was from a Thrift Store. Not everyone seel things on E-Bay or anywhere on line.
How about consignment? They may have purchased the dress at consignment. Heck, the dress may be a hand me down from a cousin or neighbor. If it's consignment they would have a name for the person that brought it there as they'll collect their money once all items sold.
LadL I agree with as well. A couch. A couch with quite a few blankies folded on it. Did these belong to the kids for use at nap time?
Why the heck would someone donate a camera that had child pornography on it? Even if they thought they deleted it? It's possible the DayCare worker had no idea someone else was hurting the kids.
This link http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/st...s-1361519.html says it's a 2005 Sony Digital Mavica.
Has America's Most Wanted done a story on this yet? It seems like that would be a great way to hopefully get this case some more exposure and media attention.
My mom used to the HR person for our local goodwill stores.
The stuff they get donated is shipped to several stores all over the state of Iowa. Some of it may go out on the shelves of the store it was donated to but if they have more than 10 crate in back of the smaller stores a truck takes the overflow and holds onto it in a warehouse till winter time when donations are slower and then distributes it out to whatever stores need it.
Bumping so I can find this thread.
Going out on a limb here, but maybe it's not child porn on the camera. It was stated that there are photos of bite marks on a child. Maybe the photos on the camera document evidence of sexual abuse, but the camera itself wasn't used in the abuse. If they find the daycare, they can find the child being abused. Does that make sense?
If LE KNOWS that the poster on the wall was distributed to day care centers, then it is highly unlikely that it would have been distributed to a home daycare center that wasn't a licensed facility. This still looks like a dingy little set up...boxes stacked behind the sofa, no bright bold, preschool colors. It looks a lot like someone's private home, outside of the pic with the children in it. That one clearly has two sets of double doors in the background.....which is most often found in 'activity centers' of churches.
Either way, it should be pretty simple to figure out all of the licensed day care centers in pensecola florida in 2005. DFS should have detailed records for each year on file. I really wonder why LE went public and not directly to the local daycare workers. It seems like--if this little girl is still missing and, presumably, still being abused wouldn't LE want to keep her abuser completely in the dark about their investigation??
All of that makes me worry that they've exhausted all other options and back channels and had no other place to go but to the general public. So worried and frustrated for this child.
This poor little one. We can only pray right now she is safe.
However, the camera was for multi use. The living room set up and the day care set up may be completely seperate. It looks that way. So who owned the camera? Day Care workers OR family of the poor child?
Of course I know this isn't CSI or anything, but can't they zoom in on writing on something somewhere? I guess not or they would have.
The photo of the little kids singing or whatever they are doing I am not sure it's Christmas. Only one child has on anything Christmas related. No matter the socio economic background I'd think that the kids would at least have on a button or something Christmas like. Then again a kid in the picture has a red sweatshirt.
The article states point blank sexual abuse, and possibly it's family abuse. Throw in family in transition and again we have to pray.
What, no parent or daycare worker has come forward to say theirs is one of the SEVERAL children in that Christmas program photo? Whenever my children's preschool had a special performance like that, I and at least one or two other relatives would always attend...although like someone else said, they're not all in holiday garb so maybe it was a rehearsal or something else. Still, I can readily identify either of my children even with their faces blurred! Come on, Florida parents!
Also, I had a 1999 Sony Mavica - it was one of the first generation models. Comparing this one's looks and features to mine, I'd agree this is around a 2005 model. I'm sure the police have already verified that through serial numbers, as well. 2006 as the year these acts happened is a good guess, but like many cameras, when you change the battery you often have to re-set the date and time so often the date/time stamps are off. I really hope they piece this together and get this child to safety!
I think this is home daycare too. I just dont get the feeling this is a facility somewhere. Someone would have recognized it by now I would think. Who knows how old those photos are? arent there some sort of a time stamp?
Rest in Peace John 08/09/86-04/24/2014.
Husband, father and son. I miss you and so does your son.
The police department website shows a stock photo of a Sony Mavica MVC-FD90, made and sold in 2000. This was replaced in 2001 by the almost-identical MVC-FD92 model. The last floppy-disk based Sony camera was the MVC-FD200, made in 2002. And that was the end of floppy-disk based digital cameras.
The news story that says it's a 2005 camera is a reporter error.
Last edited by Paul; 04-04-2011 at 11:06 PM. Reason: Links were messed up!?!
I think it's interesting that it's very obvious there was some photo editing in the chair and sofa pictures - wonder why they couldn't/wouldn't just blur out faces like in the group photo? I don't even want my mind to go there, actually....
As far as the dress goes, I found some information that the trademarks for Keneth Too and KT Kids were registered to Outrco, Inc. There's some conflicting information on a few different trademark search sites, but best I can tell, KT Kids trademark was registered in 1998 out of Delaware and abandoned in 2007. I think all this does for us is help establish that this dress would have been produced during this time period in question. Seems like a brand that had nationwide distribution at one point but is no longer commonly available except through thrift stores, Ebay, Etsy, etc.
I think it was a good thought to sleuth it out and see if it was from a local boutique, but may be another dead end.... Talk about needles in a haystack, this poor girl!
Have any of you thought that perhaps this camera just happened to end up in this thrift store when someone moved TO the area? This could be from ANYWHERE... Colorado, Oregon, California, New Jersey etc! If locals have not identified the pictures yet, I'd say that chances are likely the abuse occurred somewhere far, far away from Pensacola. This story needs some national attention.
why dont they just release the pictures of the child? That would be more helpful I think. I know its scary, but a parent deserves to know.
Rest in Peace John 08/09/86-04/24/2014.
Husband, father and son. I miss you and so does your son.
Alot of new information about this case in this interview on CNN. Unfortunately, this is a transcript, and I do not have the original video interveiw.
But for example, apparently the little girl was drugged:
"When you see this little girl, you know, getting ready for church in her house, smiling, and you see her singing in this little play that they have. And then the next picture you click through is this little girl drugged, undressed, put in compromising positions. I mean, this little girl, she`s completely out of it in these pictures that were taken. And we can`t show you because of the graphic nature, but it was just so disturbing to see.
There wasn`t actually any inappropriate touching in the pictures. But she was completely drugged when these pictures were taken. "
Also "We have taken fingerprints off the camera, DNA off the camera"
Bumping...wish we had an update
Are the police sure that this is what they think it is? If there was no inappropriate touching, all we know is that they have photos of the little girl completely out of it, and apparently posed inappropriately...
I don't mean to sound like I might be excusing anyone, because I'm not, but we used to take tons of photos and videos of my son when we were looking for a diagnosis for him. We took photos of the look he would get during a petite mal seizure (which could have been compared to the way he would look drugged). We took lots of photos after my middle son had an MRI while he was all drugged out, and I"m sure if people were looking for it, some of them might seem odd or suspicious. It wasn't to us because we knew the context. It just makes me wonder if the pictures weren't taken for documentation of a physical or behavioral disorder. In the pictures posted on the first page, with the office chair, you can see the outline of the little girl, and while she may be nude (hard to tell) all she appears to be doing is leaning on the chair...that doesn't seem all that provocative to me, and it doesn't seem like she is too drugged, since she is clearly standing under her own power. Even if she is posed or touching herself in the other photos where she is blurred out better, it could still be documentation of a condition.
I'm just wondering, since they have had no luck tracking the child down, and it seems that no one came forward. it might seem disturbing, but sometimes even disturbing things become a lot less incriminating when the context is understood.
JMO. Unless there's a link, I can't prove it.