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

[JBean]

All I know is my mind is seeing almost a complete face, rather than just a skull...

I see 2 eyes a set of big buck teeth and a rather large nose. this is just like cloud formations.
I mean this seriously. That is what I see.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

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.

No, only nasal cavities are seen. Look again.

By the way, the colored stuff is not over the skull. The leaf over left eye blends in.

 

[Theonly1]

Marina, is this what you are referring to?

As a trained artist, I can tell you that IF this is Caylee's skull (or anyone's skull for that matter) unless the top of the skull is cut off or removed then the top of your drawn pink box would be approximately the top of her skull (according to where one would see the eye sockets). One's eyes are in the middle of your skull (but people usually think the eyes are higher up than they are because they think of the forehead essentially as the top of the head). Anyway, just to add some facts to this. I don't see a top to this skull unless it is totally covered with foliage (and foliage that would obscure the dome shape).

 

[Theonly1]

RE: "Skull" sighting

We've heard about how the terrain slopes DOWNWARD, right? Why would this "skull" be hovering approximately one foot off the ground? I know there are root systems here (and likely one reason Caylee was not BURIED...it would have been a PITA to bury her there) but do you think the skull is on top of a root system?

 

[Marina2]

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.

Respectfully snipped.

Its not logic to say the skull is '"behind the really big tree on the right" from where the infamous picture was taken when Le's own documentation states differently.

Diagram colored by me for clarity.

T14 is the really big tree on the right. (red)
T10 is the smaller one at the left. (red)
The yellow is the sign.
The big black mass in that oval in the middle of the marked trees is the garbage bag. The skull was found 1 ft 7in. to the left of and 1 ft, 3 in. behind the bag. It's also stated to be east of the tree marked T2 behind the black mass

Now, stand anywhere between the trees T10 and T14 that you think the pic was taken from and tell me how your logic puts the skull behind the
tree.

You may not think the picture has the skull in it (and it may not) but it's not because it's behind that tree.
I've come to the logical conclusion that it is the skull based on the latest documents. FWIW, the photo wasn't enlarged in any way in order to see the skull. It probably got by because there are so many photos of the vegetation and the real close ups are what they were looking out for when they released the photos.
I understand your doubts but they're just that. Not absolute facts.

 

[sweetmop]

Thank you. What seems obvious to me is the fact that while we're looking at these photos trying to see all that is there and what is in them, the guys that took them were actually there. They know precisely where the skull was when they took these pictures. They know what pictures have the skull in them. They would not release photos with the skull in it. Can you imagine the uproar from the Anthony's and JB and BC if they did. They would scream to high heaven if that were to happen.

And wouldn't GR would have brought it up by now? He was more than willing to accuse LE of taping private sessions with KC in the jail ("Not that I have any proof of that" stated GR)

I so agree, ecs! I've stated that there are no photos of Caylee's tiny skull since the remains scene photos were first released!
Yes, there would be lawsuits galore! And if there were (photos of skull), I wouldn't blame the Anthonys initiating a suit ... if such photos were to have been publicly released! But they've not been!
Oh yes, Geraldo, as crude as he is, would have the pictures on his show, blown up, disected, discussed and re~discussed for weeks!

There is no photo of Caylee's skull in any photo that's been released to the public.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

This is a pic of a 3 yr old childs skull for comparison. (not a real one). If it is offensive to anyone please let me know and I'll delete it.

It looks like this except the eye socket looks less round because of the downward angle of the camera lense. The teeth are covered with the tape.

If you turn the pictured skull 2/3 of a qtr of a pie further looking to it's left is how the skull sits on the ground. We are viewing the right eye. The skull has a branch sweeping across it's forehead.

 

[Theonly1]

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

Why am I still looking at this friggin' picture? If I had to argue your point that it is the skull (even though I don't think it is). I would say that I can see some light colored hair flopped over the right eye (Caylee's left eye socket). There seems to be a mess of dirty blonde hair or foliage or something. It does not lead me to think it is a dome shape underneath though.

I can see your left eye socket (Caylee's right eye). And I can see a MESS of duct tape (not just one little piece). I think this is all mind games though.

I don't see her mandible at all. If it is here it is obscured by foliage.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

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?

It's on a root on the ground. I think the ground is a little up hill there. It looks to it's left. We view the right eye.

 

[Theonly1]

It looks like this except the eye socket looks less round because of the downward angle of the camera lense. The teeth are covered with the tape.

If you turn the pictured skull 2/3 of a qtr of a pie further looking to it's left is how the skull sits on the ground. We are viewing the right eye. The skull has a branch sweeping across it's forehead.

Huh? I must be seeing this cloud formation differently than you. I don't see a branch across the forehead.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Why am I still looking at this friggin' picture? If I had to argue your point that it is the skull (even though I don't think it is). I would say that I can see some light colored hair flopped over the right eye (Caylee's left eye socket). There seems to be a mess of dirty blonde hair or foliage or something. It does not lead me to think it is a dome shape underneath though.

I can see your left eye socket (Caylee's right eye). And I can see a MESS of duct tape (not just one little piece). I think this is all mind games though.

I don't see her mandible at all. If it is here it is obscured by foliage.

Nobody is holding you hostage.

What is a mandible?

 

[Theonly1]

Nobody is holding you hostage.

What is a mandible?

It's the jawbone.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Huh? I must be seeing this cloud formation differently than you. I don't see a branch across the forehead.

More likely a root or vine of some kind. It interfers with the roundness of the skull.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

It's the jawbone.

It's resting on the jawbone and the tape is wide - from upper lip to chin and wraps around to the back of the skull (as per docs).

 

[Marina2]

Huh? I must be seeing this cloud formation differently than you. I don't see a branch across the forehead.

LOL at "cloud formation". I see the branch. It's plain as day! Woe.be.gone sees the same skull I do. I had my reservations about this being the skull even though it looked exactly like it. When the docs came out it was confirmed that the skull was not behind that tree in the photo. It's where this alleged skull is.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Huh? I must be seeing this cloud formation differently than you. I don't see a branch across the forehead.

I admit it could be pareidolia. But I don't think so.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

LOL at "cloud formation". I see the branch. It's plain as day! Woe.be.gone sees the same skull I do. I had my reservations about this being the skull even though it looked exactly like it. When the docs came out it was confirmed that the skull was not behind that tree in the photo. It's where this alleged skull is.

What a relief to know I'm not alone:Banane43:

 

[christee]

As far as the position of the skull, according to OCSO document pg. 3415: "Directly west of the northwest corner area of the log was a human skull. The skull was upright on the ground, partially hidden by vegetation, with the front facing northwest towards the hanging vines".

I just don't think the "skull" in the photo is "upright on the ground.."

JMO

 

[ecs5298]

Respectfully snipped.

Its not logic to say the skull is '"behind the really big tree on the right" from where the infamous picture was taken when Le's own documentation states differently.

Diagram colored by me for clarity.

T14 is the really big tree on the right. (red)
T10 is the smaller one at the left. (red)
The yellow is the sign.
The big black mass in that oval in the middle of the marked trees is the garbage bag. The skull was found 1 ft 7in. to the left of and 1 ft, 3 in. behind the bag. It's also stated to be east of the tree marked T2 behind the black mass

Now, stand anywhere between the trees T10 and T14 that you think the pic was taken from and tell me how your logic puts the skull behind the
tree.

You may not think the picture has the skull in it (and it may not) but it's not because it's behind that tree.
I've come to the logical conclusion that it is the skull based on the latest documents. FWIW, the photo wasn't enlarged in any way in order to see the skull. It probably got by because there are so many photos of the vegetation and the real close ups are what they were looking out for when they released the photos.
I understand your doubts but they're just that. Not absolute facts.

Your interpretation of the angle of the photograph is all wrong. Look at the pic and line up the small tree and the sign and it's something like the pic below.

Now.. I'm sure that's not going to convince you either so let's take it this direction. The photo below is the laundry bag and the black bags. The photographer is standing directly behind, facing Suburban Dr (north) and shooting down. The bottom of the photo is just forward of the skull based on the the description of Yuri's report and Welch's forensic reports.

Now, look at the vegetation around the bags. It doesn't match. The bags are farther to the right than you think they are.

Here's another shot facing East Northeast from the remains. The area you are looking at is in the back ground.

Another shot facing directly east. I've put a box around where you are saying the skull is.

As Forest Gump once said "That's all I've got to say 'bout that"

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I so agree, ecs! I've stated that there are no photos of Caylee's tiny skull since the remains scene photos were first released!
Yes, there would be lawsuits galore! And if there were (photos of skull), I wouldn't blame the Anthonys initiating a suit ... if such photos were to have been publicly released! But they've not been!
Oh yes, Geraldo, as crude as he is, would have the pictures on his show, blown up, disected, discussed and re~discussed for weeks!

There is no photo of Caylee's skull in any photo that's been released to the public.

o'kay. If you say so.

I don't want the A's to be able to sue anybody. The State should sue them for dragging this investigation out for so long. And parading their misfortune whenever it suits them but then thumbing their noses at the truth.