yeknomaras
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,188
- Reaction score
- 1
I just watched the HT video. she is absolutely not wearing the necklace.
but.... it doesn't matter.
but.... it doesn't matter.
Does anyone remember when the first discussions of the necklace began in this case? Was it before or after BC was taken into custody? Was it in the news in '08?
If the note the jury sent the judge today is any indication, they don't want to hear anymore about ducks, sticks or necklaces.
I just watched the HT video. she is absolutely not wearing the necklace.
but.... it doesn't matter.
I'll try to find some links, but it was definitely before BC was taken into custody. I remember thinking at the time "This guy is a piece of work. Kills his wife, but then keeps the necklace so he can sell it".
Obviously my view had changed since then...
If it was discussed in the news before he was taken into custody, the fact that he didn't throw the necklace in the lake is more evidence of his innocence. He would have to know it would incriminate him. I wonder if he didn't even know it was there since it was with her other jewelry.
[/ATTACH]
Otto,
I think this is where some posters see the necklace(someone correct me if I'm wrong). In the first photo there is a faint dark line leaning to the right side of NC which would work since you can tell by her shoulder she is leaning that way. Sorry for my poor drawing skills in the second picture. Hope this helps.
Since she's looking in a different direction in each of the photos, I used the shoulders as a reference point. I don't see a necklace where the circle is, or anywhere else.
Eye_believe can probably tell you. He seemed to be so totally enthralled in her autopsy. Why?
We need a photography forensic analyst to come here and break down the pixels for us. That way they can tell us that pixel 999845, 999846, 999764 and 984634 are positive RGB, therefore must be the necklace.
But of course! Actually, there's no amount of inverting, RGB or CMYK mixing that reveals anything. It's simply not there. With images, if something is there, there's usually a way to bring it out.
But of course! Actually, there's no amount of inverting, RGB or CMYK mixing that reveals anything. It's simply not there. With images, if something is there, there's usually a way to bring it out.
Actually I think you did. I didn't see anything before but right in the center of your circle, you can see the pendant. It is grey but it's right where you plotted it to be. With the emphasis added with the circle, you can see the "V" of the chain coming off of it. It's not a big deal because I don't think it matters in terms of guilt or innocence but it sure looks like her necklace to me.
So what exactly does the note from the jurors mean? Does it mean that the Judge is not going to allow new experts to be added to list, as it would mean making the trial even longer? Does it mean that jurors have heard enough to make a decision?