1085 users online (241 members and 844 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    The Polaroids and the Dictionary

    >"When we checked the photos from a big manilla envelope
    >marked as evidence #85KKY, I almost fell out of my chair,
    >and Peck inhaled in sharp surprise. A PICTURE SHOWED
    >WEBSTER'S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY ON A COFFEE TABLE IN THE
    >FIRST FLOOR STUDY, THE CORNER OF THE LOWER LEFT-HAND PAGE
    >SHARPLY CREASED AND POINTING LIKE AN ARROW TO THE WORD
    >INCEST. Somebody had apparently been looking for a
    >definition of sexual contact between family members."



    Elsewhere, it is being suggested that because these photos are "evidence" and were given an evidence number, that they were found in the Ramsey house and not taken by police.

    On another thread here, Why_Nut provided the proof that police do take polaroid photos although this was questioned by certain people.

    Let us think about this. Polaroid photos of a dictionary opened at the word "incest" are marked as evidence.

    What is the evidence? Is it the photos ... or the fact that there is a dictionary opened at the word "incest"? Do the police take the dictionary, opened at the word "incest" as evidence ... or do the photograph it and log the photo as evidence? Wouldn't the latter make sense?

    The polaroid camera would mean they could instantly bag the photos as evidence too.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Jayelles,

    If the book was crime-scene evidence photographed by the police as found, then its value may speculative, depending on what purpose you think that the book plays.

    If the police found the photograph in the house, depicting an open book, and it references what they suggest it does, then they may feel its relevant so itemise and bag it.

    If the latter is a correct interpretation, then its importance may be linked to photographs of JonBenet found in the basement, or photographs of JonBenet taken in the basement, these need not be mutually exclusive, as they may all be polaroids!

    And as discussed elsewhere this may have constituted some persons private collection of JonBenet photographs.

    And for those who profile such people, and consider that JonBenet suffered prior sexual abuse, this may represent circumstantial evidence?


    .

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Elsewhere, it is being suggested that because these photos are "evidence" and were given an evidence number, that they were found in the Ramsey house and not taken by police.
    I think this first question is alluding to the discussion at 2BWS about photos labeled "evidence" vs. "crime scene." If I'm wrong, ignore what I'm about to say. All crime scene photos are evidence, but not all evidence is a crime scene photo. Perhaps that is why people are making the distinction. I am not aware of any practice in the LE community which requires them to label any crime scene photo as "crime scene" as opposed to "evidence." I think this is a silly discussion that is taking place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    What is the evidence? Is it the photos ... or the fact that there is a dictionary opened at the word "incest"? Do the police take the dictionary, opened at the word "incest" as evidence ... or do the photograph it and log the photo as evidence? Wouldn't the latter make sense?
    Given the context, I would guess that this is a photo of a room. As evidence, I believe the police took photos of more or less every room in the house. It appears that, after the fact, ST noticed that the dictionary was opened to the word "incest." However, if he could read the words from the polaroid, it had to be taken fairly close to the dictionary, so I wonder just what the photographer was trying to capture?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970
    "Given the context, I would guess that this is a photo of a room. As evidence, I believe the police took photos of more or less every room in the house. It appears that, after the fact, ST noticed that the dictionary was opened to the word "incest." However, if he could read the words from the polaroid, it had to be taken fairly close to the dictionary, so I wonder just what the photographer was trying to capture"

    I had the same thoughts when I first heard of the picture with the dictionary.

    To be able to read the words in a picture,of a picture of the dictionary,would be almost impossibe to read. I would think it would have to be a very big close up of the dictionary itself to make out the words,which makes me believe it was an intentional picture,of the dictionary itself.ST's comments of being some what taken aback,when he discovered it,doesn't jive.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970
    "If the latter is a correct interpretation, then its importance may be linked to photographs of JonBenet found in the basement, or photographs of JonBenet taken in the basement, these need not be mutually exclusive, as they may all be polaroids!"

    UKGuy,

    I remember that interview,and I am still shaking my head. What a debacle that was,and it didn't accomplish any thing. Well maybe it accomplished one thing ...how inept the interviewers were.And how did it end? With the interviewer,(was it Kane?),stating he hasn't seen the pictures.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    749
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    >"When we checked the photos from a big manilla envelope
    >marked as evidence #85KKY, I almost fell out of my chair,
    >and Peck inhaled in sharp surprise. A PICTURE SHOWED
    >WEBSTER'S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY ON A COFFEE TABLE IN THE
    >FIRST FLOOR STUDY, THE CORNER OF THE LOWER LEFT-HAND PAGE
    >SHARPLY CREASED AND POINTING LIKE AN ARROW TO THE WORD
    >INCEST. Somebody had apparently been looking for a
    >definition of sexual contact between family members."


    Elsewhere, it is being suggested that because these photos are "evidence" and were given an evidence number, that they were found in the Ramsey house and not taken by police.

    On another thread here, Why_Nut provided the proof that police do take polaroid photos although this was questioned by certain people.

    Let us think about this. Polaroid photos of a dictionary opened at the word "incest" are marked as evidence.

    What is the evidence? Is it the photos ... or the fact that there is a dictionary opened at the word "incest"? Do the police take the dictionary, opened at the word "incest" as evidence ... or do the photograph it and log the photo as evidence? Wouldn't the latter make sense?

    The polaroid camera would mean they could instantly bag the photos as evidence too.
    I'm surprised frankly that they didn't just take the darn dictionary itself into evidence.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by ellen13
    I'm surprised frankly that they didn't just take the darn dictionary itself into evidence.
    Yes, but the point I'm trying to make is that the dictionary wouldn't in itself be evidence - it was the POSITION of the dictionary which was the evidence. The police who took the photo may have taken a quick polaroid to bag as evidence.

    As a poster above correctly pointed out - it must have been a deliberate close-up of the page for them to be able to read the words. A regular room photo would not have captured this level of detail.

    It is entirely possible that there are also 35mm photos of the dictionary - but the polaroid may have been taken for speed because the officer who took it thought the position of the dictionary was very compelling evidence of something "not quite right".
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,384
    Quote Originally Posted by ellen13
    I'm surprised frankly that they didn't just take the darn dictionary itself into evidence.
    Usually when you look up a word you run your finger down thru the words and stop at the word you were looking for. They could have checked for fingerprints on or around the definition of that specific word. Not a huge piece of evidence but it would have been another chip in the wall.



Similar Threads

  1. OMG, BFF! It's in the dictionary, LOL
    By Reality Orlando in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-30-2011, 07:32 PM
  2. Reporter Needs Dictionary
    By SeriouslySearching in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-25-2008, 05:06 PM