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

[Roze]

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

Marina, is this what you are referring to?

 

[gogrannypop]

I found it. Hope it's not a repeat. I'm slow.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3076867&postcount=180

 

[Marina2]

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



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

Yes, I just came back here to post that, thanks.

It looks just like it to me...minus the duct tape. I've always thought it looked like a skull but until the documents mapped everything and labeled trees and such I didn't know. Now I can see that this may very well be the skull since it's in the same place LE documented it being found.

 

[Marina2]

Roze, that's it. Sad isn't it?

 

[butwhatif?]

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.

Yep, I now realize that what I thought was a skull couldnt possibly be since it has what looks like a nose- and human skulls dont have noses, and we know there was no tissue left on the remains.
Power of suggestion has played a huge roll in all the things we thought we have seen, and we're all left feeling a lil silly. I was 100% convinced that there was a photo at the scene....Never saw the cats, or old men, or anything else that others saw, but we all just let our imaginations go wild for a bit.
Wouldnt it be nice if each pic had markers and notations of what they were? Would save us alot of time and :blushing:

 

[Roze]

Roze, that's it. Sad isn't it?

The entire area where Caylee's remains were found is heartbreaking to look at. I'm not sure what we are seeing is a skull, but I saw what you are referring to immediately when those photos were first released.

 

[Marina2]

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.

I'm glad you noticed the bag AZ. I wasn't going to dare bring that into the mix. But, now that you did, doesn't it also appear to be exactly where LE states it is?
1 ft, 3 1/2 in. in front of and 1 ft, 7 in. to the right of the skull.

 

[christee]

I found it. Hope it's not a repeat. I'm slow.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3076867&postcount=180

I looked for the '2 leaves' (1 yellow, 1 green)in the 'before' and 'after' photos of the area where the skull was found. The leaves are on the left side of the tree in the foreground-the tree on the right side of photo. "The skull" looks like it's actually part of the tree trunk or 'log' described by LE (described by YM in OSCO documents, pg #3415).

JMO

 

[Marina2]

Yep, I now realize that what I thought was a skull couldnt possibly be since it has what looks like a nose- and human skulls dont have noses, and we know there was no tissue left on the remains.
Power of suggestion has played a huge roll in all the things we thought we have seen, and we're all left feeling a lil silly. I was 100% convinced that there was a photo at the scene....Never saw the cats, or old men, or anything else that others saw, but we all just let our imaginations go wild for a bit.
Wouldnt it be nice if each pic had markers and notations of what they were? Would save us alot of time and :blushing:

A human skull does have a bony ridge above the nasal cavity which can appear to be a nose.
It wasn't power of suggestion that led me to this. The documents do have markers and notations throughout that map the skull to this exact spot at the site. It takes a little digging and cross referencing but it's there.

 

[Shavaun]

Marina, is this what you are referring to?

This really does look like it.

wow.


I wonder...

 

[butwhatif?]

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.

 

[Rumpole]

I see the end of a dead tree about a foot or so off the ground.

It looks a lot LESS like a skull than the sign looked like a book

 

[christee]

Yep, the more I look at it the more it looks like the tree trunk or 'log'.

 

[staticgirl50]

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

 

[Macushla]

A human skull does have a bony ridge above the nasal cavity which can appear to be a nose.
It wasn't power of suggestion that led me to this. The documents do have markers and notations throughout that map the skull to this exact spot at the site. It takes a little digging and cross referencing but it's there.

Marina: did you see my post about where the Kinder Care sign was located and placed into evidence?

 

[Marina2]

Marina: did you see my post about where the Kinder Care sign was located and placed into evidence?

I missed your post, sorry. I did notice that the documentation of the sign was strange. They listed one of the sifting areas as where it was found?
The sign was actually in a designated lane. I don't know why they documented that. Also, I think the date was not the 11th as I would have thought.

 

[ecs5298]

Where's Spock when you need him!

 

[ThoughtElf]

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.

ITA. (Except with the cat fetus part, that's nasty.)


I do not believe for a second that anyone involved with Caylee's case from LE, ME office or the SA would release photos with significant remains in them, most especially Caylee's skull.

I don't have 'proof' of this, but throughout the course of this case, they have been sympathetic towards the fact that the Anthony's lost their Grand-daughter.

As well, if you recall, the SA themselves battled quite strongly in court to ensure the security of photos on the part of the defense, that they might never be released to the public/media.

I do not imagine that was restricted just to autopsy photos, but would have and did include any crime scene photos that would have included Caylee's skull.

I understand the desire to sleuth details, but I fail to understand how blowing up photos of the site itself in a morbid fashion is furthering this case from our stand-point? It is the job of LE, the ME's office and the SA. And I think they're doing it. In fact, I trust that they are - and doing it in a dignified manner.

Which is but one of the reasons that I don't think they have, or will, release a photograph with Caylee's skull in it. Nor should they. MOO.

 

[Rumpole]

ITA. (Except with the cat fetus part, that's nasty.)


I do not believe for a second that anyone involved with Caylee's case from LE, ME office or the SA would release photos with significant remains in them, most especially Caylee's skull.

I don't have 'proof' of this, but throughout the course of this case, they have been sympathetic towards the fact that the Anthony's lost their Grand-daughter.

As well, if you recall, the SA themselves battled quite strongly in court to ensure the security of photos on the part of the defense, that they might never be released to the public/media.

I do not imagine that was restricted just to autopsy photos, but would have and did include any crime scene photos that would have included Caylee's skull.

I understand the desire to sleuth details, but I fail to understand how blowing up photos of the site itself in a morbid fashion is furthering this case from our stand-point? It is the job of LE, the ME's office and the SA. And I think they're doing it. In fact, I trust that they are - and doing it in a dignified manner.

Which is but one of the reasons that I don't think they have, or will, release a photograph with Caylee's skull in it. Nor should they. MOO.

Have no desire to see bad taste photos, but would not mind photos with just pointers to key features, like where th skull was etc

 

[ecs5298]

ITA. (Except with the cat fetus part, that's nasty.)


I do not believe for a second that anyone involved with Caylee's case from LE, ME office or the SA would release photos with significant remains in them, most especially Caylee's skull.

I don't have 'proof' of this, but throughout the course of this case, they have been sympathetic towards the fact that the Anthony's lost their Grand-daughter.

As well, if you recall, the SA themselves battled quite strongly in court to ensure the security of photos on the part of the defense, that they might never be released to the public/media.

I do not imagine that was restricted just to autopsy photos, but would have and did include any crime scene photos that would have included Caylee's skull.

I understand the desire to sleuth details, but I fail to understand how blowing up photos of the site itself in a morbid fashion is furthering this case from our stand-point? It is the job of LE, the ME's office and the SA. And I think they're doing it. In fact, I trust that they are - and doing it in a dignified manner.

Which is but one of the reasons that I don't think they have, or will, release a photograph with Caylee's skull in it. Nor should they. MOO.

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)