Crime Scene Photos #3 ***WARNING - GRAPHIC DISCUSSION***

[Woe.be.gone]

I'm saying that the narratives and the diagrams, as well as particular evidence markers show that where we see a skull is the same place that it is documented as being found. Tree T2 is a Swamp Bay and is west of the skull. It's in lane 5 or 6...south of lane 4. The skull is northeast of T2.
The perspective in some photos is misleading so many don't think it's possible that this is the skull. Also, they don't believe LE would release it. I think that was a mistake because it's not readily apparent. But, imo and in viewing the diagrams it's more likely than not that this is the skull in the photo. I see what's there. It's not pixels or pixies, it's a skull. It's even facing the same way LE said it was...back of skull to the southeast and face of skull to the northwest. I'll see if I can snip out a portion of a diagram to show it. That's about as objective as I can get.

Thanks Marina. I didn't realize anyone else was here that claimed to see it. Back in Crime Scene #1 thread there were many peeps who claimed they could see it. It was discussed that the release must have been an error.

I'm wondering if some older computers may distort, etc.

 

[AZlawyer]

No.....

Ha well I didn't mean for you to do it, Herc. I already know your eyes are broken too.

 

[Rumpole]

Ha well I didn't mean for you to do it, Herc. I already know your eyes are broken too.

It's not that. Eyes are fine. Just can't point to photos in the twilight zone.

 

[Marina2]

My eyes must be broken. Can one of you guys cut out the part of the photo that shows the skull (or duct tape and hair)??

This is the skull. There's a leaf over the right eye.

 

[Marina2]

Ok, you have to zoom in to see the diagram. Better to view it in the documents, p3462. You can see the trees I marked in the post I made earlier.
Trees are in red. The yellow is the sign (approximate to get an idea of where you are in the diagram as this is about where the photo was taken from). All bone finds are marked with ovals or circles. No bones are labeled in this diagram, only duct tape, black plastic, cones and trees.
The black mass within the oval is the garbage bag. The skull was found app. 1.5 ft behind and 1.5 ft to the left of the garbage bag and was located to the west of tree T2 (Swamp bay) in lane 4. I put a green circle where it would be to keep within these parameters.
Standing at the sign and the T14 and T10 tree where the photo was taken the skull would be visible, imo.

The tent was moved over to cover this area after vegetation was cleared the first day. Some don't believe it's the skull because the tent isn't placed over it in some pics. Another thing that might throw your perspective off is that tree T10 and T14 don't run parallel to Suburban Dr. T10 is actually SE of the big pine, T14. If it were parallel and you stood between the trees, you wouldn't be able to see the skull.

Looking at this diagram, one would have to stand completely behind the T14 tree to not see the skull.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I see a skull in the photo without blowing it up into little pixels that magically become objects I want to see. Like I said earlier, it's even facing the same way it's described to be found.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/marina809/skull.jpg

 

[Macushla]

According to the crime scene report, hand written number of page is 3453 the Kinder Care sign was collected under Tag J-60013. the locatin given for this item was Shift Station 3. The sift stations were placed away from the crime scene. There is no way the sift station would have been placed anywhere near where the skull was found. therefore, the object in the picture near the sign is not the skull. My opinion only, of course.

 

[AZlawyer]

This is the skull. There's a leaf over the right eye.

OK, I see something close to the center of your picture with a leaf or something over the right "eye socket" (calling it that for sake of argument) and even something that looks like a piece of fabric (duct tape with shiny side worn off) over what would be the "mouth" (for sake of argument again).

BUT the "bone structure" (for sake of argument) is really lumpy and, more importantly, there is a full nose instead of nasal cavities.

 

[Rumpole]

This is the skull. There's a leaf over the right eye.

I can see at least three different "skulls" or none at all.

Can you draw around or point important parts of your skull.

And generally why is it up in the air and not "sitting" on the ground?

 

[indicat]

I can see at least three different "skulls" or none at all.

Can you draw around or point important parts of your skull.

And generally why is it up in the air and not "sitting" on the ground?

I see no skulls, I'm trying but I can't make anything out.

 

[AZlawyer]

I can see at least three different "skulls" or none at all.

Can you draw around or point important parts of your skull.

And generally why is it up in the air and not "sitting" on the ground?

Well, to me it looks like it is on the ground, and I would agree it is the skull if not for the complete nose and apparently lumpy bone structure. (And I can see it without blowing up the photo, once it is pointed out.)

If a skull is being seen that looks like a real skull and I am looking at it wrong, I think it is a credible conclusion given the area being photographed. And for purposes of comparison, no I cannot see any toys, furniture, photographs, ghosts, orbs, etc. in this picture or any other crime scene photo, and in fact I was highly skeptical of the book.

 

[indicat]

I can actually finally see where it could look like a skull but I'm pretty skeptical considering we were all so sure that was "the book".

 

[Rumpole]

Well, to me it looks like it is on the ground, and I would agree it is the skull if not for the complete nose and apparently lumpy bone structure. (And I can see it without blowing up the photo, once it is pointed out.)

If a skull is being seen that looks like a real skull and I am looking at it wrong, I think it is a credible conclusion given the area being photographed. And for purposes of comparison, no I cannot see any toys, furniture, photographs, ghosts, orbs, etc. in this picture or any other crime scene photo, and in fact I was highly skeptical of the book.

The botom of that cropped photo is a foot or so off the ground? and the "skull is well above that?

 

[Marina2]

OK, I see something close to the center of your picture with a leaf or something over the right "eye socket" (calling it that for sake of argument) and even something that looks like a piece of fabric (duct tape with shiny side worn off) over what would be the "mouth" (for sake of argument again).

BUT the "bone structure" (for sake of argument) is really lumpy and, more importantly, there is a full nose instead of nasal cavities.

There aren't nasal cavities, just a hole with a bony structue above it. Do a google image search for "child's skull". You'll see how it would appear to be a nose there. The duct tape probably distorts it some making it appear lumpy. In the first thread a poster put a side by side of a three-year-old's skull and it looked just like this one.

 

[chastity]

I am seeing a skull in the top,right hand corner of the pic. The others don't look like a skull, because of some full features,ie, nose in one, and full face in another. Who knows? I am getting cross-eyed looking at these.

 

[Marina2]

The botom of that cropped photo is a foot or so off the ground? and the "skull is well above that?

I don't understand what you mean. The skull is down the slope. Maybe it appears off the ground because of that?
It is lying on a heavy layer of leaves and vegetation, partially covered with vegetaion and sitting upright, per the documents. That's what I see in this pic.

 

[AZlawyer]

The botom of that cropped photo is a foot or so off the ground? and the "skull is well above that?

I'm assuming the "skull" (or whatever it is) is on the ground further BACK in the photo, not floating in the air in the foreground. It is next to what seems to be one of the black plastic bags that was found, which is certainly on the ground.

Looks like kind of bumpy ground, going back into the photo quite a ways.

 

[reeseeva]

There aren't nasal cavities, just a hole with a bony structue above it. Do a google image search for "child's skull". You'll see how it would appear to be a nose there. The duct tape probably distorts it some making it appear lumpy. In the first thread a poster put a side by side of a three-year-old's skull and it looked just like this one.

Marina, Is this the one you are referring to? Post#180



http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3076867#post3076867

 

[butwhatif?]

This pic of the bugs in a gloved hand looks to me as though there is also a tooth. But I didnt think that LE would release a pic of any body part. But there is also a flag that says 2 teeth and entomology. It looks like a baby tooth to me, and the nerve looks visible, and it has darkened which is what happens when there is no longer blood supply to the tooth. If Caylee had lived long enough to actually lose a baby tooth it would look a little different. The root recedes in preparation for the adult tooth.
Or is it just some odd bug or random debris?
What do you guys think?

 

[christee]

This is the skull. There's a leaf over the right eye.

I thought that was part of the log?

 

[ecs5298]

Ok...I'm going to try and appeal to everyone's logic just one more time. There is no skull there. From where the "infamous" picture was taken, the skull is behind the really big tree on the right.

Most importantly, and please, listen very carefully to this, they would not release a photo with the skull in it. They knew where the skull was in these pics. They were there. They weren't trying to guess what was leaves and twigs and what was remains. They knew exactly where the remains were. It would be immediately obvious to any of the detectives, CSI techs, the Medical Examiner Investigator or anyone else who worked that scene that first day if there was a picture released with the skull visible in it at any magnification. Another thing, even if they made the horrible mistake on the first photo release, they wouldn't have made the same mistake again. In this last doc dump they released about 5 to 6 more shots of the exact same angle from the exact same location, just with different zoom settings. That's how we know it wasn't a book. We have multiple shots of that same area from the same angle. Can you imagine what would happen to the poor sap that let that slip by only one time much less 5 or 6 times.

Your time would be better spent blowing up the pictures and looking for microscopic cat fetuses. At least they're cute. There are no remains visible in these pictures.