Roze
Founding Member of AFKBPOFPOPL, Part-time Dentist
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,687
- Reaction score
- 2
This is the skull. There's a leaf over the right eye.
Marina, is this what you are referring to?
![skull.jpg](/forums/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi706.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww65%2FRoze_album%2Fskull.jpg&hash=40bdee5103b5bffa7d1db792e62825fe)
![skull1.jpg](/forums/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi706.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww65%2FRoze_album%2Fskull1.jpg&hash=f3c53df52955c9a651287a37b0b2bfa2)
This is the skull. There's a leaf over the right eye.
Yes, I just came back here to post that, thanks.Marina, Is this the one you are referring to? Post#180
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3076867#post3076867
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.
Roze, that's it. Sad isn't it?
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?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 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).I found it. Hope it's not a repeat. I'm slow.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3076867&postcount=180
A human skull does have a bony ridge above the nasal cavity which can appear to be a nose.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:
Marina, is this what you are referring to?
![]()
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?
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.
Have no desire to see bad taste photos, but would not mind photos with just pointers to key features, like where th skull was etcITA. (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.
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.