2009.03.02 - Motion Hearing (Casey Tries to Halt Release of Evidence)

[Hot Dogs]

How could you think I might already know the comings and goings on *advertiser censored* sites?

I wasn't implying that you would go surfing for *advertiser censored*. I just didn't know if you had learned that by reading WS threads, and possibly (only) following the links that lead you to the image itself.

that's because i'm friggin' awesome...


dont know for sure, because we dont have anything to compare it to...

i know im putting up a good argument for it being KC, but i really dont know. i'm not saying it is, or it isnt. i couldnt begin to speculate where the picture came from or how many others there are. that's not my "department", but graphically speaking, it's pretty convincing.

My comments and questions were sorta leading to a point (that is my opinion). If I had factual knowledge that *advertiser censored* girl really is KC, I'd go on to say that somebody altered the bridge and nose bulb to look different - but at the same time retained the array of holes/scars on the nose. The alteration includes areas that have the hole/scars. Like they drastically changed the shape but kept the original surface texture.

Is it actually extra effort to retain the detailed surface texture when reshaping the nose? IOW, does it look like the digi-tech actually wanted to keep those little nose holes and proceeded with that intent?

 

[trixi491]

This is off topic of the pictures but wasn't JB supposed to give some sort of press conference after the motion hearing? Hmm notice how he only does when things seem to go his way..

 

[smolea]

My comments and questions were sorta leading to a point (that is my opinion). If I had factual knowledge that *advertiser censored* girl really is KC, I'd go on to say that somebody altered the bridge and nose bulb to look different - but at the same time retained the array of holes/scars on the nose. The alteration includes areas that have the hole/scars. Like they drastically changed the shape but kept the original surface texture.

Is it actually extra effort to retain the detailed surface texture when reshaping the nose? IOW, does it look like the digi-tech actually wanted to keep those little nose holes and proceeded with that intent?

Oh i see what you're saying...yes you could alter the bridge and bulb of the nose but not affect the texture of the part that i was comparing. As to why they would leave it...i can only guess they didn't spend that much time on whoever it is. But, this photo has ABSOLUTELY been retouched, no doubt about that. So im not so worried about what was photoshopped, im more interested in what *wasn't*. because obviously they didn't ADD blemishes and scars, so those are the only features that can be compared. Am I making any sense?

 

[SissyPo]

You can easily cover scars and blemishes with makeup and if she did this *advertiser censored* stuff then I think she would had put on alot of makeup she normally does not wear everyday.
As far as the fake nails, I am sure she worn them at times, most young people do now.

*advertiser censored* is right up her alley the way she like to party and the things she did. I think if she had a chance to do *advertiser censored* and make money she would have done it.

 

[MAMABEAR]

coincidence? who knows. i could be swayed if someone had a good argument that it's not her. comparing the scars on the nose, i have to think...what are the chances? i mean, what would the odds be that someone who strikingly resembled someone else would have *some* of the same scars on their face, same shaped "crazy eyes" and same hair, color and cut??? i just don't know...and uness she had a "KC the babykiller" tattoo on her forehead, then it's all speculation anyhow, right? :]

Very good job. I have always figured it was her. Am more convinced it's her. we'll see if there are any more like it when the dump gets here.
takin bets here

 

[MAMABEAR]

"oh, kc...what a perfectly shaped nose you have now."

what was that...five minutes? I'm better than i thought *smiles*

oh u go gurl.

 

[SoSueMe]

...All pictures of *advertiser censored* girl that you have seen on this forum have been cropped (necessary because it is *advertiser censored*) and reduced in size. The original photo is rather large and detailed. Viewing the original size does not increase the likelihood of it being KC and may actually decrease it because dissimilar features are presented in greater resolution.

I'm going to post the original size now....
.

Er, thank you Hot Dogs. I have seen the original, so no need to post it again, oh I see you already have - LOL. From that camera angle and the position of her facial features (mouth open and sort of stretching her face), I think it could be her. I certainly wouldn't put it past her to allow a photo like this to be taken. JMO Further, I would be more worried about photos taken after Caylee went missing. To me, that does the most damage to her case.

Sue

 

[cecybeans]

You guys are doing such a fabulous job with all the photo work - if you aren't LE/FBI contractors you should be!

I have to keep reminding myself though that whether these pictures are actually of KC or they are photoshopped to look like her (or simply photoshopped to improve her looks) the crux of the matter is this: KC posted these in her photobuckets and social sites AS IF THEY WERE HER; she wanted people to think it WAS her. So for all intents and purposes it does not matter if they are, her intent was to pass them off as images of herself which says a lot right there. A real pic of KC or a "stunt double" - it's all the same thing in the end regarding what she is communicating to the public about who she is and what she is interested in doing all day instead of raising a child. A mother of any child who is willing to have images like this attributed to themselves floating all over cyberspace is not sending the signal she is the "mother of the year" imo.

 

[Cat13067]

A couple comparisons on the nose scar and forehead crease/scar for your sleuthing pleasure...

My oh my sure looks like KC to me.

 

[Cat13067]

Very good job. I have always figured it was her. Am more convinced it's her. we'll see if there are any more like it when the dump gets here.
takin bets here

I'm with you, Mama put me down for $ 20.00

 

[Cat13067]

KC really bites her fingernails down to the quik. Ouch!

 

[MAMABEAR]

I'm with you, Mama put me down for $ 20.00

HEYYYYYYYYY CAT:slap:
Just heard on NG that doc dump in 24 hrs. Hmmmmmmmm. Before the week-end? we'll see.
:blowkiss:

 

[MarleneM]

No only that the company/people who took and publish the photos would be screaming to the heavens that they have the "tot mom' killer's *advertiser censored* photos. also, the last time this was discussed there were other pictures of her and you can tell it's not her.

Does anyone remember the original site the picture came from?

I agree. I don't think *advertiser censored* girl is KC because too many things would have to have been photoshop'd, but bottom line for me is that either KC would have bragged about them to a bf or the photographers (like the ones from Fusion lounge) would have tried cashing in by now.

 

[ibyoungr]

I did not know for sure at first. My hubby took a look and thinks it is and I am now more convinced with the scars.

 

[yeknomaras]

also keep in mind KC wears blue contacts and her eyes are brown (confirmed in arrest reports)

 

[rubix]

also, for the record no matter where the *advertiser censored* pic came from it wasn't from photobucket because photobucket removes exif data from their photos from what i can tell.

this *advertiser censored* pic contains the following inside it:
CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 85

 

[twitterpated]

You guys are doing such a fabulous job with all the photo work - if you aren't LE/FBI contractors you should be!

I have to keep reminding myself though that whether these pictures are actually of KC or they are photoshopped to look like her (or simply photoshopped to improve her looks) the crux of the matter is this: KC posted these in her photobuckets and social sites AS IF THEY WERE HER; she wanted people to think it WAS her. So for all intents and purposes it does not matter if they are, her intent was to pass them off as images of herself which says a lot right there. A real pic of KC or a "stunt double" - it's all the same thing in the end regarding what she is communicating to the public about who she is and what she is interested in doing all day instead of raising a child. A mother of any child who is willing to have images like this attributed to themselves floating all over cyberspace is not sending the signal she is the "mother of the year" imo.

I had not heard or read that this "*advertiser censored* pic" came from KC's photobucket account. Where did you hear or read that?

 

[cecybeans]

I had not heard or read that this "*advertiser censored* pic" came from KC's photobucket account. Where did you hear or read that?

Sorry to be confusing, I wasn't implying that this particular photo discussed above came from a photobucket account. Several similar pictures have circulated that apparently did - I'm not sure what site this came from. But for the sake of convenience, I'm assuming it's one of the 1000 that are being referenced in the motion that JB put forth.

 

[christee]

My oh my sure looks like KC to me.

Uh oh...

That sure looks likes a metal stud scar on KC's right nostril(blueish dot), and the pic of, uhm, what do I call her, the "working girl" KC?

(If this has already been discussed, my apologies) :abnormal:

 

[twitterpated]

Sorry to be confusing, I wasn't implying that this particular photo discussed above came from a photobucket account. Several similar pictures have circulated that apparently did - I'm not sure what site this came from. But for the sake of convenience, I'm assuming it's one of the 1000 that are being referenced in the motion that JB put forth.

Thanks! I was just thinking I had missed something.