Caylee opening the sliding glass door photo

New Posts

Tennessean said:
I marked it 'original' since it was the only image shown on 3 large sites that I read. Since you know where the 'real original' is, maybe you could give us a link.

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

Someone posted the original taken from their computer screen in this very thread a couple pages back. People should watch the hearing before relying on pictures posted on the web. The original photo was kind of dark (since it was taken against the light) and then someone lightened it and others elongated it, and those are the pics being passed around. People are talking about the color being off or the dimensions being off...but again, It was not what was shown in court.
Not to be snarky, but I read through this entire thread and I am convinced many people do not actually read the posts, so many repeated comments are posted even after they've been explained.
 
Tennessean said:
Anyhow, I think the reasonable explanation is what I have shown above. IANAL and I'm not a graphics expert. Others here that are more experienced in graphics than myself need to take a look at my assumptions here.
Click to expand...

snipped for brevity only

i AM a graphics expert - (not in the sense of expert witness, though!) - and you are precisely correct. nice work! knowing now that it's from video - this is a pretty common mistake people make.
 
BBM

Hot Dogs said:
The image with the altered aspect ratio (tall skinny) is not what the defense presented in court. It was altered by somebody on the web and has been passed around.

You have it marked as "orig" but that is not original at all. The defense originally presented the image with a correct aspect ratio.
Click to expand...

How can you be so sure? If you know of a way to corroborate what is in bold please do share so the WWW can put this baby to bed, so to speak. Much appreciation, TY.

ETA: So, the theory is that the pic was shown correctly in Court but when it was put on the overhead and then copied by screenshot to computers it changes it? If so, I get' that. That would make sense, I guess...coming from me a photo novice...lol.

*Just trying to understand...
 
dsntslp said:
How can you be so sure? If you know of a way to corroborate what is in bold please do share so the WWW can put this baby to bed, so to speak. Much appreciation, TY.
Click to expand...

I was watching the trial live on a WFTV feed. The image was shown to the court with a correct aspect ratio. I don't know what more to say.

I was shocked when I saw the altered aspect ratio images being passed around the web.
 
Since I no longer work as a medic, I do some freelance photography... have for 10years. One of the first things people mess up when they resize an image is they alter the aspect ratio... I've seen it many, many times.

As to this picture, that's what I see has happened. You can resize in many programs, so "Photoshopping" may mnot be the right terminology here. But it still comes down to the fact that Dr G report states Caylee was 36-38 inches. The standard door knob is 36 inches from the bottom of the door... as sad as it is, she would have no issue reaching the handle, in fact it would nearly be eye level for her.

As for evidence tampering, etc. is concerned, the State had the pic as well and did not object when it was admitted. I think many are making much ado over something really insignificant. JMOO
 
LongtimeMedic said:
Since I no longer work as a medic, I do some freelance photography... have for 10years. One of the first things people mess up when they resize an image is they alter the aspect ratio... I've seen it many, many times.

As to this picture, that's what I see has happened. You can resize in many programs, so "Photoshopping" may mnot be the right terminology here. But it still comes down to the fact that Dr G report states Caylee was 36-38 inches. The standard door knob is 36 inches from the bottom of the door... as sad as it is, she would have no issue reaching the handle, in fact it would nearly be eye level for her.

As for evidence tampering, etc. is concerned, the State had the pic as well and did not object when it was admitted. I think many are making much ado over something really insignificant. JMOO
Click to expand...

I agree! Thank you for that post
:deadhorse:
 
dsntslp said:
ETA: So, the theory is that the pic was shown correctly in Court but when it was put on the overhead and then copied by screenshot to computers it changes it? If so, I get' that. That would make sense, I guess...coming from me a photo novice...lol.

*Just trying to understand...
Click to expand...

It's not just a theory, it's what actually happened. The defense presented the image in a correct aspect ratio. The overhead projector didn't change the aspect ratio. Everyone in court as well as all of the media pool witnessed it in the correct aspect ratio.

When the aspect ratio is altered in the way we have seen, it is extremely obvious that something is wrong. People (including children) do not have those body proportions. It looks like a Modigliani figure...


attachment.php

Amedeo-Modigliani-Jeanne-Hebuterne-101275.jpg
modigliani_jeannehebuterne.jpg
 
Kamille said:
I agree that this is a picture of Caylee but I just think that the origin of the picture is in question. If it is a still from a video, the PT should have had access to the video. If Caylee did open the door that day, and it was captured on video, then the whole video would have been used, not just a still frame.

MOO
Click to expand...


That is the thought I had too and posted about before. Just because she has her hand on the handle and the door is cracked doesn't prove she is actually opening the door (or capable of opening it). It could have already been cracked and she was attempting to open it more but was unsuccessful.
 
I think it's caylee & I also think they planned their defence around these pictures.
That is.... after ICA heard the story going through the jail first.
 
nerdy said:
snipped for brevity only

i AM a graphics expert - (not in the sense of expert witness, though!) - and you are precisely correct. nice work! knowing now that it's from video - this is a pretty common mistake people make.
Click to expand...

so is it confirmed it's a still shot from a video?

if that is the case then i'm even more convinced now about my theory that she was unable to actually open the sliding glass door. b/c if they have a video of her actually opening the sliding glass door that would much more powerful evidence and they would certainly show it to prove their point that she was capable of opening that door. no video tells me that she was unable to open it and was just attempting to open it (pulling on handle).
 
What I gleaned as the most interesting aspect of this thread, is that this is a perfect example of how Reasonable Doubt is born. Some in the room say, "she could open that no problem... that picture is even a year old!" with some saying "Nah... I don't think she could." and some saying "Well... maybe, but I'm not sure".

While one picture won't change the verdict, it takes a small chip off of the edge of the block of a story the State is going with, if they take a chip off something else, and then again and again, until a hole is created in the story. That's what the DT's job is, and from reading here, this picture made for quite a provocative subject. I've served on two juries, and in both cases, I saw how one peice of evidence would change someones mind, and it would hard for the others to make their point to get them back on their side. JMOO
 
Hot Dogs said:
The original* is what was shown in live court. It could probably be found now in recordings of the proceedings (some are on YouTube and some on major media sites).

* = the true original resides as a digital file that came from the actual camera used. It would be on an Anthony memory card, hard drive, etc.
Click to expand...

You can see it here at about the 2:14 mark:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/user/weshtv#p/u/4/W4btd6pgSEY"]YouTube - ‪weshtv's Channel‬‏[/ame]
 
The Eunice Burns said:
caylee-1.jpg


OK, this is what I'm referring to in my recent post. In the image above, notice what is separating the tile from the berber carpet? It's what we call a "reducer", and it is installed between wood and tile, and in some installations, between carpet and tile, etc. In the photo of her at the sliding door, I don't see any sort of reducer between the tile and the carpet. Instead it looks as if the tile is almost sitting on top of the carpet. Something still does not seem right to me w/ this photo. But, I could be suffering from Acute Anthonyitis.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this photo showing a relative close up of the flooring. This is also the way tile flooring is connected with carpet in my home. In the photo of Caylee at the sliding glass door I agree it appears the tile is higher than the carpeted floor, and therefore her right leg seems to be lower than the left one. I also question if the photo has been altered in any way, or if it is a still from a video especially since her face can't be seen to positively verify it is Caylee.
MOO
 
The Eunice Burns said:
caylee-1.jpg


OK, this is what I'm referring to in my recent post. In the image above, notice what is separating the tile from the berber carpet? It's what we call a "reducer", and it is installed between wood and tile, and in some installations, between carpet and tile, etc. In the photo of her at the sliding door, I don't see any sort of reducer between the tile and the carpet. Instead it looks as if the tile is almost sitting on top of the carpet. Something still does not seem right to me w/ this photo. But, I could be suffering from Acute Anthonyitis.
Click to expand...

Click to enlarge attachment...
 

Attachments

  • reducer.jpg
    reducer.jpg
    160.4 KB · Views: 34
Si Caylee was right-handed? If she was, she wouldn't be trying to open or close a door with her left hand, especially a door that required some struggle from a child.

Another thing that bothers me about the defense's logic is that we've heard Caylee loved to swim and asked to get in the pool often. She was put in a life vest often and I'm sure it was explained to her what it was for. She would have grown accustomed to it and looked for it before making the effort to climb into the pool because she's old enough to understand that. It's like crossing the street. Kids have it ingrained very early on to take their parents hand when they cross the street and it's explained to them why. They learn to be cautious. Caylee, from all accounts, was a bright child who listened to direction.

Thirdly, Cindy claims she saw the ladder up when she got home but she's certain it was taken down the last time the pool was used. In fact, it alarmed her because it was up and that's not usual. Who put it up? It's too heavy for Caylee.

There are just too many holes in this pool theory to me. Anyone with common sense would think the possibilities through and realize, if the mother and grandfather were home, if the ladder was up, if Caylee was a bright child, it would not happen unless there was some intent and malice involved. So the only way I'm believing Caylee drowned in that pool is if someone set it up for her to drown. I'm still not buying any kind of an accident.
 
LongtimeMedic said:
What I gleaned as the most interesting aspect of this thread, is that this is a perfect example of how Reasonable Doubt is born. Some in the room say, "she could open that no problem... that picture is even a year old!" with some saying "Nah... I don't think she could." and some saying "Well... maybe, but I'm not sure".

While one picture won't change the verdict, it takes a small chip off of the edge of the block of a story the State is going with, if they take a chip off something else, and then again and again, until a hole is created in the story. That's what the DT's job is, and from reading here, this picture made for quite a provocative subject. I've served on two juries, and in both cases, I saw how one peice of evidence would change someones mind, and it would hard for the others to make their point to get them back on their side. JMOO
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Surely not all jurors will agree on the photo. However, this photo isn't going to convict or acquit either, as the more important thing will be whether or not they believe the pool ladder was left up and whether or not Caylee could or would have climbed the ladder on her own and fallen into the pool to drown. I still have some doubts about that.

MOO
 
I guess I just don't really see the point at all. So what if there is a photo of her going through a door. Millions of children go through many doors each day and they're not all dead.
How is this evidence that Caylee drowned accidentally?
 
Donjeta said:
I guess I just don't really see the point at all. So what if there is a photo of her going through a door. Millions of children go through many doors each day and they're not all dead.
How is this evidence that Caylee drowned accidentally?
Click to expand...
The question in the thread is whether or not this is actually a picture of Caylee. We are not really addressing the significance of such a picture beyond her ability to open the door to access the outside. Some feel that this picture was doctored or otherwise manipulated by the defense and that is the issue at hand.
 
Sorry folks but this photo is normal

The reason it looks out of proportion is because its quite close up and the whole length of the door isnt showing - If it had been taken at the far end of the room with the whole door length in the photo you would see what I mean. The shoes are bulky but you can see she is tip-toeing to stretch to reach up

I have photoshop and if you stretch a photo then you stretch the whole length of the canvas and besides, stretching the photo would do nothing as she is grabbing up at the door handle - it would be pointless!

I bet that this is a series of photos though or maybe even a still from a video. As for the shoes...whats the big deal? I remember my daughter as a toddler insisting on wearing her wellington boots with her fairy costume!

I honestly dont think this is mysterious at all and yes I think its Caylee - sorry

:whiteflag:
 
panthera said:
Totally agree. Surely not all jurors will agree on the photo. However, this photo isn't going to convict or acquit either, as the more important thing will be whether or not they believe the pool ladder was left up and whether or not Caylee could or would have climbed the ladder on her own and fallen into the pool to drown. I still have some doubts about that.

MOO
Click to expand...



I have no doubt that she could have drowned but the story about how it supposedly happened makes no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 213 more.
Total: 3,847 (members: 214, guests: 3,633)

Online statistics

Members online
214
Guests online
3,633
Total visitors
3,847
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,649
Messages
17,956,954
Members
228,575
Latest member
Onaquest
Back
Top