GUILTY NC - PFC Kelli Bordeaux, 23, Fayetteville, 14 April 2012 - #10

[sundrop]

You might should do that experiment again. A minor image does not reverse the sides of your body. It is the same as if you were standing behind the person in the photo.

It was determined, in earlier threads, that you can not see her left hand in that photo. Although it appears to be her left hand in the photo...the pic is in a mirror and therefore it is actually her right hand you see holding the phone/camera.

I just took a picture of myself in the mirror and confirmed this to be true...it is her right hand holding the phone.

Image can be seen here...sorry don't know how to attach it. http://www.findkelli.com/

 

[andalso]

You might should do that experiment again. A minor image does not reverse the sides of your body. It is the same as if you were standing behind the person in the photo.

I am willing to be wrong on this... and running off to do it again but please also try it yourself...it is the weirdest thing ever.

Yup...same results...I held the phone in my right hand and took a picture in the mirror, and when I look at the picture I would swear to you I was holding the phone in my left hand, but not so.

 

[andalso]

See this post, by Madeleine, for another explanation of why that is her right hand holding the phone, discussed in thread 7.
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - NC NC - Fort Bragg soldier PFC Kelli Bordeaux, 23, Fayetteville, 14 April 2012 - #7

 

[sundrop]

Right side only if you're looking straight at the photo from the front. However, place yourself behind Kelli in the photo and most of her hair is parted on her
left.

http://www.findkelli.com/

See this post, by Madeleine, for another explanation of why that is her right hand holding the phone, discussed in thread 7.
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - NC NC - Fort Bragg soldier PFC Kelli Bordeaux, 23, Fayetteville, 14 April 2012 - #7

 

[Madeleine74]

But, I will say, that specific jewelry can help LE identify a body/person prior to DNA tests being completed and that could mean a family would not have to wait as long to identify a loved one.

You've got 2 different arguments going for the same thing. First you say it's important for the public to know. Then you said it's really important because it might help LE to identify a victim faster.

No positive ID will be made only based on jewelry--that never happens and no M.E. would do such a thing (and I'm not saying you are saying they would). Investigators may use this info to start to prepare a family for bad news and/or to request dental charts or something with which to compare with the victim's remains. The police would keep info about what the victim was found wearing (or not) secret because it would be an item of evidential value to the DA to build a case.

In conducting searches would you tell people to "look for a thin gold wedding band that might have fallen off somewhere" or "look for the person and/or their remains"? During a search people *may* find an article of clothing that links back to the victim. They *may* find lots of items that don't link to the person at all--this often happens as lots of discarded items are in wooded areas. Unless we're talking about a piece of jewelry the size of the Hope diamond, which we're not, I wouldn't expect to find small jewelry items unless it was on the body or near the body. And the goal is finding the body and preserving the scene.

It's generally not an important detail for the public to know as much as it's important for LE to know. Yes, I'm sure you can find examples where some missing female's jewelry was described at some point, but it's not typical. Posters are put up for the public. The police already have a full description and know details the public doesn't know that may help them when a body is found.

 

[sundrop]

You possibly can make an ID of bone/body based on jewelry if the victim's name is engraved in the item.

You've got 2 different arguments going for the same thing. First you say it's important for the public to know. Then you said it's really important because it might help LE to identify a victim faster.

No positive ID will be made only based on jewelry--that never happens and no M.E. would do such a thing. Investigators may use this info to prepare a family for bad news or to request dental charts or something with which to compare with the victim. The police would keep info about what the victim was wearing (or not) secret because it would be an item of value to the DA to build a case.

In conducting searches would you tell people to "look for a thin gold wedding band that might have fallen off somewhere" or "look for the person and/or their remains"? During a search people *may* find an article of clothing that links back to the victim. They *may* find lots of items that don't link to the person at all--this often happens as lots of discarded items are in wooded areas. Unless we're talking about a piece of jewelry the size of the Hope diamond, which we're not, I wouldn't expect to find small jewelry items unless it was on the body or near the body. And the goal is finding the body and preserving the scene.

 

[Madeleine74]

You possibly can make an ID of bone/body based on jewelry if the victim's name is engraved in the item.

Aren't positive ID's of a body made by the medical examiner? Do they use engraved jewelry to determine ID of a victim? I've never heard of an M.E. using this to make a determination.

 

[andalso]

I can agree to disagree...but IMO, I think it is important for LE and the public to know what jewelry a missing person was wearing, IMO there are various reason why I believe this to be true. You can be of a different opinion and that's fine.

Also, I believe that Kelli is holding the phone in her right hand in this photo.

IMO, posting below what I think backs up my opinion that we are only seeing her right hand.

from this website where Kelli's sister is the admin
http://www.facebook.com/FindKelli/info

has several tattoos, one is on her right side that stretches from under her arm down her right side and thigh, shown in above photo.

 

[sundrop]

You're talking about official positive ID; I'm talking about the investigative worth of listing victims' jewelry that possibly they were wearing, which can aid in their ID. :banghead:

Aren't positive ID's of a body made by the medical examiner? Do they use engraved jewelry to determine ID of a victim? I've never heard of an M.E. using this to make a determination.

 

[andalso]

You've got 2 different arguments going for the same thing. First you say it's important for the public to know. Then you said it's really important because it might help LE to identify a victim faster.

No positive ID will be made only based on jewelry--that never happens and no M.E. would do such a thing (and I'm not saying you are saying they would). Investigators may use this info to start to prepare a family for bad news and/or to request dental charts or something with which to compare with the victim's remains. The police would keep info about what the victim was found wearing (or not) secret because it would be an item of evidential value to the DA to build a case.

In conducting searches would you tell people to "look for a thin gold wedding band that might have fallen off somewhere" or "look for the person and/or their remains"? During a search people *may* find an article of clothing that links back to the victim. They *may* find lots of items that don't link to the person at all--this often happens as lots of discarded items are in wooded areas. Unless we're talking about a piece of jewelry the size of the Hope diamond, which we're not, I wouldn't expect to find small jewelry items unless it was on the body or near the body. And the goal is finding the body and preserving the scene.

It's generally not an important detail for the public to know as much as it's important for LE to know. Yes, I'm sure you can find examples where some missing female's jewelry was described at some point, but it's not typical. Posters are put up for the public. The police already have a full description and know details the public doesn't know that may help them when a body is found.

BBM: Funny...I agree with both of my arguments too! IMO. I also believe that a positive ID could be made by a family from jewelry alone...though I am sure, and glad, that a ME will only be looking for positive scientific ID.

 

[Madeleine74]

I guess no one remembers or is aware of soldiers who occasionally switched dog tags back in the day before there was such a thing as DNA testing of remains.

My understanding is police may believe a body matches a victim and they may be 100% absolutely certain of it, but they wait until the medical examiner makes an official ID before saying for sure one way or the other, even to the victim's family. If a civilian searcher (i.e. NOT a member of the police dept) finds a body, their determination of the body's ID would not be qualified. Jewelry may be helpful and it's presence is evidence, but I still don't see how the public knowing or not knowing about jewelry the victim may have worn will help find the person's body.

However, if you think disclosing someone might be wearing a pair of earrings or might be wearing a ring and you believe that info can make the difference in the person being found or not, just ask police departments and all missing person agencies to include that information for each missing person that gets reported.

 

[Madeleine74]

And bringing this back to Kelli: so what jewelry was Kelli wearing that night? Her family didn't see her in person. The police didn't see her in person. Who made note of what jewelry she was wearing and how accurate is the information? The picture above doesn't tell anything.

 

[andalso]

I sure wish the family or LE would let us know if she was wearing her wedding ring the night she went missing. I just feel that would be telling of the true status of Kelli and Mike's relationship. I just can't figure out why, if she was wearing it, it is not mentioned as something to be on the lookout for.
Just a re-occuring thought I have had throughout this case.

Bumping why I brought up the jewelry...specifically her wedding ring.

It has also just occurred to me that most quality diamonds are laser engraved with a registry number and sometimes the diamond is even insured. I feel that finding her diamond ring and/or knowing if she was wearing it that night would be beneficial to the LE investigation.

 

[lowes123]

Have they said what leg/foot her tattoos were on? That would be the side she is holding the phone with. Are we sure she even wor a wedding band? Plenty of married people don't wear their bands, sometimes just due to the job they have.

 

[OldSteve]

The ring... now I can imagine a scenario in which a married gal goes to a bar and her husband who is supposed to be away has come back, and sees shes gone out and left her ring at home... that might be upsetting... imagine the wife is being driven home by another man and realizing hubby has returned, and she of course knows that he'll see she is not wearing her ring...

This is just something that ran though my mind. I know it's a bit far-fetch as far as this case.

 

[FL Gurl]

Have they said what leg/foot her tattoos were on? That would be the side she is holding the phone with. Are we sure she even wor a wedding band? Plenty of married people don't wear their bands, sometimes just due to the job they have.

Kelli's tattoo was on her upper left thigh. If she had her wedding band on it was small and may not be visible in this picture if you can't see a front view of her hand. Besides, this picture was taken before she left her apartment and she may not of put her ring or earrings on yet.

 

[iSleuth]

BBM: Funny...I agree with both of my arguments too! IMO. I also believe that a positive ID could be made by a family from jewelry alone...though I am sure, and glad, that a ME will only be looking for positive scientific ID.

This has definitely happened. My fiance's father ( a retired police LT) was murdered in central america and his body was buried, moved and reburied, when he was found he was unrecognizable. They used his police LT ring to ID him- before the dental records- confirmed.

 

[Chili Fries]

Have they said what leg/foot her tattoos were on? That would be the side she is holding the phone with. Are we sure she even wor a wedding band? Plenty of married people don't wear their bands, sometimes just due to the job they have.

She's definitely holding the phone in her right hand, you can tell by the way the Apple logo on the back of the phone is oriented.

And she's not wearing her ring in the photo. Whether she put it on before she went out or didn't wear it that night...we don't know. We do know that her sister Olivia confirmed they were having problems in the marriage (I believe that was in the most recent webcast interview show they did). It doesn't necessarily throw up a red flag to me that her husband deniesit because I've seen too many of these cases where innocent people don't admit problems pertaining to the missing person, it happens a lot.

Her family still vehemently asserts that her husband had nothing to do with her disappearance. And, as I said before, I don't think it's right to accuse the guy unless law enforcement or the family gives us a reason to. The last comment the lead investigator made seemed to indicate clearly to me that LE is very focused on Holbert.

 

[FL Gurl]

Well stated Chili! I think in the beginning the family believed Kelli would be found quick. Out of respect to Kelli and her husband and them being so private they didn't feel like it was important to bring up any marital issues. The longer it got - the more people realized the truth. They were separated and had problems as many couples do. That does not mean MB had anything to do with this and Kelli's family stands behind him.

 

[Madeleine74]

Chili fries wrote: And she's not wearing her ring in the photo.

She doesn't appear to be wearing a ring on that right hand, the one holding the phone. We can't see her left hand in that photo.

As a member of the public and a case bystander it makes no difference to me if she was wearing her wedding ring, not wearing a wedding ring, had tossed it in the garbage, had it melted down for $$, threw it in a drawer, or wore it occasionally. That information is important to the investigators, as they compile their case and, I suppose, to her immediate family who might want to know where KB's jewelry is if she has valuables.

However, to the public, whether KB wore a wedding ring or was not wearing it is not relevant and it is merely a point for speculation and gossip. "oooh look she wasn't wearing her wedding ring! That must mean.... {insert speculation about KB, her husband, her marriage, her state of mind, her intentions, and her habits}" </chiming bells of doom>.