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

[Theonly1]

Picture of the deflated balloon:

http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/021809remainsfoundOCSOpictures_set5/1/lg/204340.htm

...once so childlike

 

[fortytwo]

Are those orbs in the picts?

Don't be silly.

It's been proven conclusively that they're pixies.

As I said before, you have to use orbital photography to get photos of orbs.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I guess it is a balloon, but it doesn't look like one to me. Mylar ballons don't fold or crinkle like that. This looks more clothlike.

 

[christee]

:innocent:

Not familiar with that particular term, but I can work it out.

which term, 'Master'? 'split'? or 'us'?

 

[fortytwo]

http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/021809remainsfoundOCSOpictures_set3/1/lg/203041.htm

This one is labeled black and white plastic (in the follow-up evidence tag). The black plastic is sort of partially under the dirt. I see white matter in the background (upper left hand corner).

Cushion cover with a zip.

I think they took that photo because it clearly shows a red, heart shaped sticker that's been chewed around the edges by partying ants.

 

[christee]

I think they took that photo because it clearly shows a red, heart shaped sticker that's been chewed around the edges by partying ants.

OMG I almost had a heart spasm!

Now I'm Just wiping away my funny tears!

 

[Theonly1]

SHOEPRINTS?

A string (all in a row) of these photos has rulers and all kinds of measuring but there is NOTHING to see but shoeprints! So, I'm assuming, for example, this is a shoeprint photo:

http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/021809remainsfoundOCSOpictures_set7/1/lg/205536.htm

more shoeprints:
http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/021809remainsfoundOCSOpictures_set7/1/lg/205539.htm

 

[Theonly1]

I guess it is a balloon, but it doesn't look like one to me. Mylar ballons don't fold or crinkle like that. This looks more clothlike.

The evidence tag directly after it says it is a balloon (with a Sprite can, etc).

 

[christee]

SHOEPRINTS?

A string (all in a row) of these photos has rulers and all kinds of measuring but there is NOTHING to see but shoeprints! So, I'm assuming, for example, this is a shoeprint photo:

http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/021809remainsfoundOCSOpictures_set7/1/lg/205536.htm

Hhhmmm... looks like a circular area where sand/dirt has been disturbed.

 

[Marina2]

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"

I think you interpretation is wrong. You're nearly behind the big tree by the road. This would put the little tree right in the middle of the pic and it's not. I don't understand what you'r trying to say with the other pics. I know where the bags are located.
Here's another view you may have missed. Look at the sign. The big tree is out of the picture to it's left and the little tree is to it's right. The skull is 1ft 7 inches to the right of the bag that's just barely in view and 1 ft, 2 in. behind it. Clearlly it's not behind the pine tree. The bags themselves are just at the edge of the path per the documents.

ETA; The angle you show the photo taken from wouldn't even capture the path...it's down a slope and not visible from where you're standing near the road. You have to go closer and point the camera down a little.

 

[fortytwo]

I think you interpretation is wrong. You're nearly behind the big tree by the road. This would put the little tree right in the middle of the pic and it's not. I don't understand what you'r trying to say with the other pics. I know where the bags are located.
Here's another view you may have missed. Look at the sign. The big tree is out of the picture to it's left and the little tree is to it's right. The skull is 1ft 7 inches to the right of the bag that's just barely in view and 1 ft, 2 in. behind it. Clearlly it's not behind the pine tree. The bags themselves are just at the edge of the path per the documents.

ETA; The angle you show the photo taken from wouldn't even capture the path...it's down a slope and not visible from where you're standing near the road. You have to go closer and point the camera down a little.

I think your location of the skull is wrong.

If you extend an imaginary line from the pixie in the upper left of your photo through the canvas bag then the skull would have been off-frame on that line to the lower left.

 

[Marina2]

Hi Marina. Do you know what the scale is on that diagram?

JBean, the page has a scale on it. p3462
It looks like a much larger area than it is.

 

[snow_walker]

My whole perspective of the area needs re-thinking.. somehow, in some pics, it seems like the bags are farther into the woods.. in these pics they look like they are just off the road.. as if they could have been seen from the road, had anyone glanced that way.
If that is the case, I don't see how the they could have been missed in the earlier searches, that area couldn't have been underwater, or the road would have been underwater? Or even if the area were flooded, surely they are so near the road, someone would have discovered them sooner, even if they didn't exactly search there.. they would have just stumbled across them. They seem to be in clear view (speaking mostly of the bags at the moment)

 

[JBean]

JBean, the page has a scale on it. p3462
It looks like a much larger area than it is.

That's what I thought. I am seeing it different than you, but love your approach. thanks for a good thread.

 

[Marina2]

I think your location of the skull is wrong.

If you extend an imaginary line from the pixie in the upper left of your photo through the canvas bag then the skull would have been off-frame on that line to the lower left.

No, because the garbage bag is behind the canvas bag (it has a width of it's own too), and the skull is another 1 ft 3 inches behind the garbage bag and 1 ft 7 inches to the left of it (if you have your back to Suburban Dr.) My line is an approximation keeping these measurements in mind.

I didn't notice the "pixie" in the photo until you mentioned it. I thought you were making fun of me.

 

[AZlawyer]

OK, I guess I will have to study the diagrams re: placement of the skull at the scene, but for now I'm in the "log" camp, with a nod to the "skull" camp to acknowledge that the end of this particular log looks a heck of a lot like a skull.

Something else occurred to me: why is the "skull" dark gray if, indeed, it is a skull? I thought it would be white--and I thought RK said it was white.

 

[Marina2]

My whole perspective of the area needs re-thinking.. somehow, in some pics, it seems like the bags are farther into the woods.. in these pics they look like they are just off the road.. as if they could have been seen from the road, had anyone glanced that way.
If that is the case, I don't see how the they could have been missed in the earlier searches, that area couldn't have been underwater, or the road would have been underwater? Or even if the area were flooded, surely they are so near the road, someone would have discovered them sooner, even if they didn't exactly search there.. they would have just stumbled across them. They seem to be in clear view (speaking mostly of the bags at the moment)

They are very close. 18 to 20 feet from the curbside for the bags and skull. If not for the slope into the woods they probably would have been visible to passers by.

 

[fortytwo]

My whole perspective of the area needs re-thinking.. somehow, in some pics, it seems like the bags are farther into the woods.. in these pics they look like they are just off the road.. as if they could have been seen from the road, had anyone glanced that way.
If that is the case, I don't see how the they could have been missed in the earlier searches, that area couldn't have been underwater, or the road would have been underwater? Or even if the area were flooded, surely they are so near the road, someone would have discovered them sooner, even if they didn't exactly search there.. they would have just stumbled across them. They seem to be in clear view (speaking mostly of the bags at the moment)

The area could easily have been underwater. The spot that the remains were found is several ft. lower than the road. I'd say that the entire area, road, houses and all is all fill. Reclaimed swamp (Of course that's a short description of Florida, isn't it.)

As far as a clear view is concerned, the skull was found 18 ft. from the curb. No, that's not very far at all, but starting about 5 or 6 ft. from the curb the underbrush rapidly becomes thick. Even impenetrable. The existence of what can only be charitably called a "path" is the only reason RK ever went in there, and probably the same reason KC chose it.

 

[magic-cat]

Could it be the kind of hankerchief (silk?) that men put into the front pocket of a suit jacket?

It looks like one of those little headscarves that Caylee was always wearing to me...

My whole perspective of the area needs re-thinking.. somehow, in some pics, it seems like the bags are farther into the woods.. in these pics they look like they are just off the road.. as if they could have been seen from the road, had anyone glanced that way.
If that is the case, I don't see how the they could have been missed in the earlier searches, that area couldn't have been underwater, or the road would have been underwater? Or even if the area were flooded, surely they are so near the road, someone would have discovered them sooner, even if they didn't exactly search there.. they would have just stumbled across them. They seem to be in clear view (speaking mostly of the bags at the moment)

They seem to be in clear view but they weren't. This area kind of "drops off" and is a downward slope, and as the waters come it fills up and it was covered that high when the searchers were in that area. It had just receded in the week to ten days prior to Kronk going in there and discovering the remains.

 

[ThoughtElf]

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

Hey, now there is a reasonable idea. That would likely work for many.