The HW or WH belt evidence at gilgonews

New Posts

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2020-12-08 at 7.27.54 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2020-12-08 at 7.27.54 AM.png
    626.4 KB · Views: 76
Last edited:
FullMinder said:
@eagleyeseymour

Looks like SCPD changed it sometime after I posted here. I thought that using Barnes was intentional (or possibly irrelevant) but definitely had not considered it was a sloppy mistake.

I didn’t do anything special with html or anything. I simply opened each image in a new tab where the info I copy/pasted above was in the url and then I downloaded the images to my computer, keeping their given filenames.
The full filenames are:
"belt pic Barnes 10-658464 ME10-4485 brown1.jpg"
"belt pic Barnes 10-658464 ME10-4485 black2noglove.jpg"

I didn’t pay attention to the numbers originally but maybe ME10-....is the medical examiner’s case number? Don’t know what the other number is.

Anyway, I can't be the only person who saw it.
Click to expand...
One is SCPD case number, other is ME case number.
 
afia998 said:
Hi I'm new to this thread so sorry in advance if I ask some obvious questions
Does this mean they found the belt before the discovery of GB4 ? If so is that now a crucial piece of information?
Click to expand...

The GB4 were the first set of bodies found. Some time around the time they were found, the media let it slip that a ligature was found around the neck of one of the 4. The media retracted that info pretty quickly...no doubt because LE asked them to...but a lot of us remember it. That's why many of us are convinced this evidence is connected to either Melissa, Maureen, Amber or Megan. Throw in the catch about the file name on these new pictures being "Barnes ", and that pretty much cements it, imo.

Hope that helps.
 
Interesting thing here is that GB4 were obviously moved to their locations of discovery. LISK leaves a belt, and perhaps a glove (as per file name)? Points to a VERY rushed relocation.
 
3Patriots said:
Interesting thing here is that GB4 were obviously moved to their locations of discovery. LISK leaves a belt, and perhaps a glove (as per file name)? Points to a VERY rushed relocation.
Click to expand...

Questions:
How decayed was burlap? Were the bags in same condition of decay, do we know for sure they were moved at the same time?

Timeline:
MBB , 1st of GB4
missing 7-10-07
Found 12--10
Evidence photographed 2-10-11 ?
the theory of first kill, sloppiest makes sense, in some ways as physical evidence left, unless there is other physical evidence left we don't know about

MB
missing 7-10-09
Phone calls to sister last for about 5 weeks from date she went missing
Found 12--10

MW
missing 6-6-10
Found 12--10

ALC
missing 9-2-10
Found 12--10
 
I looked again (I could not sleep last night) and all the pictures of the initials are in the brown looks like leather, none on the silver side.. the silver side however does not look like metal (if so it is poor quality) but rather metallic silver leather and it is pulling away from the base. So it is a double sided belt in brown and silver. That imho sounds more like a woman’s belt as I don’t know many men who would wear a metallic silver belt.

We can’t see the attachment which would help tell us if it is a robust men’s belt or a women’s belt... I agree with other posts that it is more likely HM, from the way the H is made, and the off center way the initials are done... it is all weird.
 
FullMinder said:
@eagleyeseymour

Looks like SCPD changed it sometime after I posted here. I thought that using Barnes was intentional (or possibly irrelevant) but definitely had not considered it was a sloppy mistake.

I didn’t do anything special with html or anything. I simply opened each image in a new tab where the info I copy/pasted above was in the url and then I downloaded the images to my computer, keeping their given filenames.
The full filenames are:
"belt pic Barnes 10-658464 ME10-4485 brown1.jpg"
"belt pic Barnes 10-658464 ME10-4485 black2noglove.jpg"

I didn’t pay attention to the numbers originally but maybe ME10-....is the medical examiner’s case number? Don’t know what the other number is.

Anyway, I can't be the only person who saw it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for responding. Even when I follow the path you did and download the images to my computer, the file names are shortened to beltpic1.png and beltpic2.png.

That being said, @Fabra has proven that the URL that includes the full filenames is still valid.

So Barnes it is. Who would've thought the release of these images would reveal this much and not due to the photograph itself but rather the name of the file.

Also, if you zoom in on beltpic1.png aka "belt pic Barnes 10-658464 ME10-4485 black2noglove.jpg" and look on the left side of it, there are two distinct and clear circles most of us recognize as being from the "Blur" tool. Why would SCPD alter the photo and blur this section out? And why would they do do it in such a crude fashion to make the blurring more obvious? It looks like they used the largest brush size available as opposed to using a tiny on and making a series of dots to blend it in, it's really a sore thumb.

If you look through the blur, it appears there are are 3 slash marks equidistant from one another and all going in the same direction. Why is this significant enough to blur out?
 
Halsey Manor? random but something that keeps sticking out in my mind
 
Perhaps crazy, but a knockoff H&M belt? It looks like a double sided metallic silver to brown belt and downtown NYC they used to have stores selling knockoffs of all leather goods. Going against this is that H&M was pretty low cost... but maybe it is another luxury brand knock off?
 
eagleyeseymour said:
Thanks for responding. Even when I follow the path you did and download the images to my computer, the file names are shortened to beltpic1.png and beltpic2.png.

That being said, @Fabra has proven that the URL that includes the full filenames is still valid.

So Barnes it is. Who would've thought the release of these images would reveal this much and not due to the photograph itself but rather the name of the file.

Also, if you zoom in on beltpic1.png aka "belt pic Barnes 10-658464 ME10-4485 black2noglove.jpg" and look on the left side of it, there are two distinct and clear circles most of us recognize as being from the "Blur" tool. Why would SCPD alter the photo and blur this section out? And why would they do do it in such a crude fashion to make the blurring more obvious? It looks like they used the largest brush size available as opposed to using a tiny on and making a series of dots to blend it in, it's really a sore thumb.

If you look through the blur, it appears there are are 3 slash marks equidistant from one another and all going in the same direction. Why is this significant enough to blur out?
Click to expand...

Wow. Usually Im skeptical about finding clues in pictures, but as someone who uses photo editing programs, those sure are 3 circles from a blur tool, clear as day. Eagle eyes indeed! What are they hiding now?
 
I looked very closely at the lettering. The middle of the H has a line that goes up slightly to the right. That is consistent with the Cyrillic alphabet. The way the M is written is also consistent with that alphabet. So it could be made by someone from Ukraine, Russia or other countries that use that alphabet. Are any of the women from overseas?
 
Here is a sample of Cyrillic handwriting from my textbook “Russian for Everybody” printed in Moscow 1984. It is not exactly the same, but similar.
 

Attachments

  • F987204B-7D49-4A6E-9613-B2354BDC6122.jpeg
    F987204B-7D49-4A6E-9613-B2354BDC6122.jpeg
    107.3 KB · Views: 22
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 79 more.
Total: 1,375 (members: 80, guests: 1,295)

Online statistics

Members online
80
Guests online
1,295
Total visitors
1,375
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,785
Messages
17,958,870
Members
228,606
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top