Crime scene photos #2

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
JWG said:
It is a JPEG-compressed image, so the pixels have already been manipulated and the original information is lost.

That is not a human skull in the picture, any more than there is a horse's head in the wood grain of my living room floor. The textures of the foliage - which by the way are several feet off the ground - give the illusion of a skull.
Click to expand...

The original information was not lost because the time is available. The picture with the bag was taken on 12.11 at 11:54am the one before in the zip file that I got from the OC site was taken when the photographer was just at the scene, this photo was taken at 11:50 am. Then one more taken at 11:51am. These were all taken in sequence and with the same camera.

All of the aerial ones were taken with a different camera.

That was before ANYTHING was removed if you watched it at the time. They did not remove the remains until later in the afternoon.

I believe the time tells the tale on this.
 
TURBOTHINK said:
195831-1.jpg
Click to expand...
i think its just to the right of the yellow leaf thats in the center. the skull is facing to the right and i see what appears to br tape over the head. i cant clearly see the mouth.
Bless little Caylee. Her life didnt have to end this way..

ETA: its a little to the right of the yellow leaf and then look down about an inch.
 
I applaude the person who mentioned the Tell Tale Heart. This crime really is the Tell Tale Heart. The child's book seems to be turned to the yellow page, drawing attention to the remains. The storm must have washed the remains closer and closer to the road. The meter reader wouldn't give up. The car smelled worse and worse--truly like the heart that wouldn't stop beating.

Also, no doubt the remains ARE in these photos. We may not be able to outline them, but they ARE there. That's the whole point of the photos.

:chicken:
 
Couldn't they just release the picture in a dng format and we could really pick it apart :waitasec: I've tried everyway possible to sharpen, contrast, and enlarge but it just isn't happening with the jpg and resolution size.
 
Laneymae said:
Do you really think that the prosecution would release a picture of Caylee's skull? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Not intentionally. As I have said before most likely some clerk who had not been to the scene went through those pictures to determine what to release and did not see the bag in the picture. Most likely only saw the trees.

I believe it was an innocent mistake, but a mistake just the same.
 
Okay... I feel stupid. I cannot for the life of me see this "skull". Not saying it isn't there.. I'm just frustrated not being able to see!
 
Laneymae said:
Do you really think that the prosecution would release a picture of Caylee's skull? Seriously?
Click to expand...

I gotta agree with you... the book maybe, but the skull? I seriously doubt that! Besides... looking at that pic I can "see" 3 skulls... but in reality, they're leaves, shadows and an imagination all blurred together...

And also, IMO, if there was a book around the skull when the meter-reader guy found it, I think it would have been mentioned in the 911 call... "I went to take a leak and found a book on the ground... then I looked up and saw a black garbage bag... I went to get the black bag... and a skull fell out!"
 
TURBOTHINK said:
The original information was not lost because the time is available. The picture with the bag was taken on 12.11 at 11:54am the one before in the zip file that I got from the OC site was taken when the photographer was just at the scene, this photo was taken at 11:50 am. Then one more taken at 11:51am. These were all taken in sequence and with the same camera.

All of the aerial ones were taken with a different camera.

That was before ANYTHING was removed if you watched it at the time. They did not remove the remains until later in the afternoon.

I believe the time tells the tale on this.
Click to expand...
While you are probably correct on the times, I believe the shot is only of the vegetation and NOT a shot of any evidence in the location. You can't make me believe they would accidently release a shot of the actual "crime scene" complete with the bag and the skull. I don't believe it for a second.

People are going to continue to perpetuate this because they do see what they want to see there. I have such a vivid imagination that I could make all kinds of things out of that vegetation and limbs. OCSO is going to have to put an end to this speculation on such a macabre scale.
 
I'm reposting this here from my post on a page or two back. I don't want anyone to miss it.


Title on the book Caylee was reading in the video is "Suppertime For Frieda Fuzzypaws" by Cyndy Szekeres.

The book in the woods could be "Fluffy Duckling" by the same author. Library description says: When Fluffy Duckling emerges from her egg she meets a bird, a caterpillar, and a turtle before finding her own Mama Duck. On board pages. A Golden book.

When I enlarged the woods photo of the book, I could see a big picture of an animal that looked like some sort of brown bird. So it fits with the description above. The author has written many books like this.

My original post is here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3078849&postcount=124
 
SeriouslySearching said:
OCSO would not release photos with pertinent evidence in them. Period. There is no skull or bag in any of those photos, imo. Matrixing and the pixellation of leaves, roots, etc. will always create images in our minds. That is all it is.
Click to expand...

I am really happy you said that because I was afraid to. I cannot imagine they would release anything that would give up the goods.
 
MagicRose99 said:
I gotta agree with you... the book maybe, but the skull? I seriously doubt that! Besides... looking at that pic I can "see" 3 skulls... but in reality, they're leaves, shadows and an imagination all blurred together...

And also, IMO, if there was a book around the skull when the meter-reader guy found it, I think it would have been mentioned in the 911 call... "I went to take a leak and found a book on the ground... then I looked up and saw a black garbage bag... I went to get the black bag... and a skull fell out!"
Click to expand...

booktestcopy.jpg
 
I could never imagine that they were called to the scene 3 times in August and blew it off. But it seems they did. :(
 
aksleuth said:
Re the bold:

The book Caylee was looking at in the video is about a kitten or kittens. The kitty's picture is on the cover. The back of the book is white. The front has a large picture of the cat. The cover may have been partially yellow with a white border. Some or all of the pages in the book are yellow and it only has pics of the cat in it. I watched the videos carefully a few times.

The book in the woods appears to be open, not closed, so we can't see the cover, but the pages are yellow, and it looks like some sort of birds in the pictures. It could possibly be a book from a set of books and/or from the same publisher of the book Caylee had in the video. She could have several books like these.

I was going to watch it again to see if I could make out the title but I can't find it.


GOT IT!!! Title is Suppertime For Frieda Fuzzypaws by Cyndy Szekeres.

The book in the woods could be "Fluffy Duckling" by the same author. Library description says: When Fluffy Duckling emerges from her egg she meets a bird, a caterpillar, and a turtle before finding her own Mama Duck. On board pages. "A Golden book".
Click to expand...

You could have saved yourself a lot of work, Clock's Ticking posted that on page 3. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3078456&postcount=51
 
KOOL LOOK said:
Just finished reading both threads, absolutely intriguing excellent thought provacations and sleuthing. One of the best "reads" I've had in a long time. Keep up the good work, especially those able to photoshop, write, circle, draw and color in images so we can have a better view, visual and understanding of what is being described per photo. I take a bow.
Click to expand...

Worth repeating...:clap:
 
I have squinted my eyes, tilted my laptop all around, and given myself a headache trying to see these "skulls" in the photos. I just don't see one that even slightly resembles a skull. There is no way LE would ever release a photo that contained a child's skull. I am sure each and every one of the photos released were very carefully examined to make sure there was no evidence in them. Yes, LE has made a couple mistakes, but let's give them some credit, huh?
 
SeriouslySearching said:
OCSO would not release photos with pertinent evidence in them. Period. There is no skull or bag in any of those photos, imo. Matrixing and the pixellation of leaves, roots, etc. will always create images in our minds. That is all it is.
Click to expand...

:clap::clap:
I see what can be "a shape or image" of a skull. I just do not believe it to be an actual skull. And if it was there is not enough information there to glean any pertintent information that could be used in sleuthing.
 
I know everyone has a different perspective by I just wanted to add what I am seeing. Mods feel free to edit or modify for size. I know this image is extremely large but until I zoomed on the photo, as with many of us, I initially saw nothing. [/IMG]
 
January. said:
I have squinted my eyes, tilted my laptop all around, and given myself a headache trying to see these "skulls" in the photos. I just don't see one that even slightly resembles a skull. There is no way LE would ever release a photo that contained a child's skull. I am sure each and every one of the photos released were very carefully examined to make sure there was no evidence in them. Yes, LE has made a couple mistakes, but let's give them some credit, huh?
Click to expand...


Well, I'm in the "see it" camp. I do not like what I see, and I hope I'm wrong. We'll see a trial, I guess.
 
Laneymae said:
Do you really think that the prosecution would release a picture of Caylee's skull? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Accidentally, yes. Anything is possible, especially with this case. They may have missed it or thought it wasn't visible, due to the fact that this photo isn't a close up. Human error happens.

Do I think that is a skull? No, not at this point. Do I think a skull is slightly visible in another photo (the poster removed it)? Possibly. I wish that person would repost that photo. It was pretty interesting.

***Updated*** Mrs.Peacock just posted that 2nd photo that made me stop and think that just may be a skull. That is the other photo I was referring to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 223 more.
Total: 4,368 (members: 224, guests: 4,144)

Online statistics

Members online
224
Guests online
4,144
Total visitors
4,368
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,312
Messages
17,967,189
Members
228,741
Latest member
DuckierPresents
Back
Top