MacCruiskeen wrote:You may be right, barracuda. Or you may not. Who can tell? (And why should it be such a mystery in the first place?) And they certainly didn't have to colorize the image to sell it! They must have made millions off the monochrome version alone. (Although... Is it even legal to buy and copyright such an image?)
No, it probably isn't, which is why someone colorized it in the first place. The colorized version becomes your property. And the google date search is pretty good evidence that it was originally b&w, imho. Why do you doubt it?
Also: Who, in the 21st century, takes b&w photos at all? A handful of diehard art photographers, that's who. And that is certainly no art photograph. It looks like a mugshot, or a regrettable ID, or a snapshot taken hastily and incompetently in of those old-fashioned booths. (Do they even exist in the States these days?)
It looks like a photo from a junior college ID. It certainly has all the earmarks of a photo taken under bland instructions to look at a blinking red light near the lens. I suppose it's entirely possible that such a badge or ID was scanned by the police in b&w for inclusion in their press packages of the 17th. And for all we know it was originally color.
This is really starting to piss me off now. Where the hell did that blurred monstrosity come from, before it so handily hit the front pages of the world's press? Exactly who put it out there, and exactly where did that anonymous fucker find it, before someone* made millions off it?
Why are you ignoring the documented fact that the picture originated with the Connecticut State police? It's from a publicly distributed handout from law enforcement. What kind of evidence are you looking for here? Are you hoping to read an interview with the photographer? Or a statement on the record from a member of the police investigative team that found the photograph which details a specific provenance and chain of custody?
I don't get it. Further, I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would care enough to make such a big deal about it. Something about the image conjures for you an entire summation of some corner of the conspiracy you intuit. I have no doubt that for Adam Lanza, the picture meant very little. Is there anyone on this forum who doesn't have a fairly recent picture ID with a less than flattering photograph of you? A high school yearbook shot that's laughable? If it wasn't for the crippling fact that I am incredibly photogenic I'm quite certain I'd have a few of my own. It's indescribably mundane.
It doesn't make him look like evil incarnate, at all. He looks like a harmless nerd. Jesus.
MacCruiskeen wrote:I submit that it is not the same person at all.
That's absurd. Anyone else feel that way?
You know what that is? An
explosive squib. That's all it is. And it's not a valuable statement about the case, or a productive aspect of the discussion. It's a thought-stopper, period, and not even a particularly interesting one at that. For someone griping about evidence, you seem to have no compunctions about throwing out a notion that's self-evidently bizarre in format and character. Non sequitur.
This is a local news story, not the crime of the century. I blame the media for the gist of the blow up, but you've sure done your part.
All I want to know is whether it did fact originate in a yearbook or elsewhere.
Why? What will that tell you about the case?
