Is the circle glare on the photo or is it coming from the person who took the picture of the image on their television?
As far as I know, A_News_Junkie took the photo of her television. And since she was the first person to note the "circle glare" on the KM photo, I'm assuming it's not from A_N_J's phone/camera.
I don't believe she had the pearl flip phone. I think she had the 8130, which Cricket sold. It's been said she was also on Cricket like JC.
It's the right size and shape, and the flash is located at the top of the back of the phone.
I'm not seeing the "contour" that belimom pointed out (and that my friend and I recognized at once as being the same as the one on the flip phone) on the 8130 that matches the phone in her hand on the "Missing" poster. Help?
I think so too. THis is the phone I had before my current BB Bold. Also, if the flip phone had been used in a 'tripod' fashion with the phone barely opened, the picture would be upside down.
JMO
Oh good, I was hoping to hear from members who have used/are familiar with BlackBerry phones. I'd love to confirm what kind of phone KM has.
So far I haven't heard back from anyone here at WS who has seen what my friend and I clearly identified (separately) as a candy bar phone with a dark border/case around it (the upper left corner -- more specifically, the perfect curve of the corner of the phone and its border/dark-colored case -- are crystal clear next to the flash), which none of the BlackBerry phones we found pictures of have.
Of course, KM could've had a case on her phone, but so far I still haven't changed my mind about her having a flip phone (again, I don't see anything on the 8130 that matches the phone in her hand, whereas the flip has the "contour" that belimom has also recognized), and I've never seen a case like the ones used on a candy bar phone on a flip phone. Can anyone help me out on this?
I don't believe the photo was taken with a phone in a "tripod" fashion (I didn't mean to suggest this with my use of the photo of the phone in "tripod" mode -- sorry for any confusion).
The other thought I was having is that 'flash spot' an overhead ceiling fixture???
Of course anything is possible, but if this IS another light source reflected in the picture, it is coincidentally placed PERFECTLY over the flash of the phone being used to take the photo (or, if the phone being used doesn't have a flash, the light just happens to be where a flash
would originate).
This isn't quite the same but could it be this? It is a picture of the Blackberry flip phone:
http://cdn.feelphones.com/wp-content/uploads/t-mobile-8220-red-ofc1.jpg
Yes, belimom: This is the closest I was able to find to the phone from the photo of KM on the "Missing" poster.
But why? Why would someone even think to take the photo of a photo first, then to be all tricky with it?
I've been surprised to find that, so far, everyone is responding to my post with the fact that they're having trouble imagining a scenario where the responsible would
plan to complicate things for him/herself by using more than one phone. I certainly never meant to suggest such a ridiculous theory. No one would
choose to use more than one phone. You're misunderstanding me.
If JC is the responsible party, I would suggest a scenario somewhere along the following lines:
JC returns to the townhouse alone after murdering/disposing of KM. He rushes inside with her purse and keys and, while putting them back in their normal places (and possibly dealing with the dog), the idea that
a photo of a hard copy of a photo that can be found in KM's bedroom, sent to his phone from hers later by text message, establishes that she was alive and well and in her bedroom while he was with friends at the time the photo is sent to his phone. A photograph from inside KM's home and sent to him elsewhere would be far more valuable than a simple text -- which could be typed by anyone, anywhere, at any time.
However, JC realizes that instead of carrying KM's phone inside the townhouse with him along with her purse and keys (which are being replaced, again, in an effort to cover himself and to create the illusion that KM's townhouse is the site of an abduction by a random stranger sometime
after the photo text was sent/while he was out with his friends), he has left her phone in his car (whether by accident or because he knows he'll need to take it with him) -- but he has
his phone in his pocket.
Now, panicked, his "photo text" idea in his mind, he can either run back out to his car to grab KM's cell, but decides that instead of risking arousing suspicion by rushing in and out of the house more than once, he'll simply take the photo NOW with his phone and "deal with it later" after he has left the townhouse and is in the clear. At which point he can simply send the photo from his phone to KM's phone, save it to her phone, and delete 1.) this simple text exchange and 2.) the photo from HIS phone. He can then simply wait until plenty of time has passed and then, long after he has established an alibi with a friend or friends -- around, oh, let's say, 12:52 -- send the photo FROM Katelyn's phone TO his own phone. None of this would be difficult to do -- it would take mere seconds -- and it would all be done this way because it HAD to be done this way:
because none of this was premeditated, everything is messy/complicated.
I'm talking about a scenario where the use of the perp's phone is by necessity, not by choice.
And, unless JC has been planning this for a while, isn't messy/complicated the
likely quality of his actions following something so earth-shattering as a murder?
Makes no sense to me either. If anything, the whole picture thing is so weird, it was never going to help him look more innocent.
I very respectfully disagree. I believe, in JC's mind following the murder of KM, a photograph of a photograph located in KM's bedroom,
taken in KM's bedroom, and sent from her phone to his phone well after he has established an alibi with friends, goes a lot further toward making him look innocent than a simple text message, which ANYONE could type from ANY LOCATION.
I think it gives JC more credit than he deserves for being able to think on his feet. ...in my opinion he could never have conceived of a plan as convoluted as the picture taking theory presented here. Maybe faking texts back and forth, that's possible. JMO, of course....
I don't think he is that smart, I really don't. Thinking of whose phone to send a pic with etc. just doesn't add up to JC for me
Again, I want to reiterate my proposal here: that if the phone reflected in the photograph is in fact the responsible's phone, it was a
mistake on his part, NOT a
well-thought out, planned action.
Of course, anything is possible here. It's just as likely that all this "picture of a picture" business was perfectly harmless, and has little or nothing to do with the case; maybe KM took the photo herself weeks or months ago and didn't get around to sending it to JC until that night. Who knows? I don't claim to have any answers here -- I'm filled with questions when it comes to this particular aspect of the case (as well as most of the rest of it, as we all are). My original goal was to simply see if I could make out any reflections of objects the flash may have illuminated in the photo; after recognizing that a phone was partially visible, I simply hoped to recognize the phone reflected in the photo as KM's. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to eliminate this or anything else as a possibility (always my goal, rather than to dream up theories and try to sell people on them), because the phone reflected in the photo does not match any BlackBerry I've seen to this point.
