The Polaroids and the Dictionary

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Jayelles, Jan 18, 2006.

  1. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    >"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.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,188
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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?


    .
     
  4. Voice of Reason

    Voice of Reason New Member

    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.

    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?
     
  5. capps

    capps New Member

    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "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.
     
  6. capps

    capps New Member

    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "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.
     
  7. ellen13

    ellen13 New Member

    Messages:
    749
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm surprised frankly that they didn't just take the darn dictionary itself into evidence.
     
  8. Jayelles

    Jayelles New Member

    Messages:
    2,389
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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".
     
  9. Becba

    Becba Former Member

    Messages:
    1,384
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice