www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index www.justiceforchandra.com
Justice for Chandra Levy and missing women
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Possible Natalee Holloway find underwater off Aruba
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Jennifer Kesse and similar disappearances
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:37 pm    Post subject: Possible Natalee Holloway find underwater off Aruba Reply with quote

News outlets are reporting that John and Patti Muldowney took a picture of something resembling a skull underwater off the coast of Aruba in October 2009. The photo was turned over to FBI. Not sure why it's just now making national news.

A prosecutor spokewoman Ann Angela is saying that a dive team will soon try to find the spot where picture was taken.

I blew up the picture and adjusted brightness a little to see better on my PC. It appears unmistakably a skull to me, with slightly protruding front teeth. There are neck bones, and then what looks to me like her body in a dress up against a large rock, right arm outstretched.

Her leg appears to be curved down over the rock, with lower leg extending downward ending with shoe but toe in a crevice. If it is a shoe as appears to me, the shoe is slightly high heeled.

Also of interest in the lower right corner of picture is a pole shaped object with concentric rings of alternating dark and light colors. Within each band is contrasting design, so for example, with the dark band (green?) is a lighter shaded green design, within the light band is a dark shaded design.

It's set away from the skull to the right, about shoulder height, and separated from the body by open space. It might be a sea artifact, I don't know, but compared to the skull I'd say about arms length and seems to taper to an end.

I will post the pictures in another thread as they are large. If not a skull and body, it certainly looks enough like it to go find out.

Possible Natalee Holloway underwater off Aruba - pictures

I hope this is closure for Natalee and her loved ones finally.

rd

click to read the online true crime mystery novel Murder on a Horse Trail: The Disappearance of Chandra Levy

www.justiceforchandra.com home page


Arizona Daily Star was nice enough to include the photo in its article, here:

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/world/article_7b82d593-bcb5-58b1-b27d-15788e301add.html

New tip leads Aruba to search for missing US teen
Arizona Daily Star
March 20, 2010
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

from HelpFindTheMissing, nanabillie wrote:
Since they can't even find the photo they were given, I wouldn't hold my breath on them finding anything. Could it be they don't want to? I hope not.

I would like to know how far out from shore it was.


I was wondering too, nanabillie. Associated Press articles didn't have this quote, but your lead article has this:

"It just seems so strange that that girl never showed up, and here we are right off the shoreline, right where she disappeared, and there's a body lying there," John Muldowney, 78, told the newspaper."'

Also, I posted photo slightly enlarged and greatly enlarged (and lightened for me to see better on my PC). Yes, the eyes, mouth, slightly protruding front teeth, perfect curvature at back is clearly a skull to me, highly detailed.

Also, I point out looks like her leg extending down from dress ending in slightly high heeled shoe with toe in crevice of a rock. And arm extending out to her right as mentioned, I believe.

The striped rod / pole looks very solid and straight.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

from email: hard to see, maybe skull, or maybe your eyes are better.

yeah, I have trained eyes from many years working with images.

The middle image is easier to see where everything is, but the bottom image is easiest to see detail. The skull takes up the whole screen.

Position the skull to center of screen. The face is to the left, mouth open, slightly protruding front teeth, and chin and eye sockets visible. Back of skull is perfectly rounded as a head would be.

The neck is several bones below skull. At that point the body is draped around back of rock. Looks like wearing a dress. Arm goes out to left of picture as a dark mark.

Follow dress to end of rock, and look down below it. Looks like leg extending from dress, down to shoe. Shoe is with toe to left, heel to right, with a slight high heel. Toe of shoe is in crevice of rock.

Let me know if I can add any more description. You have to scroll slowly with mouse to move picture a little to right ot left, up or down as needed.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's some helpful analysis quoted by CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/20/aruba.photo.remains/

Aruban divers to inspect site where couple says they saw human remains
CNN
March 20, 2010

The owner of this photograph says she detected human remains in the shot three months after it was taken.

<snip>

The photo was taken by a Pennsylvania woman using a disposable film camera during the first stop on her Royal Caribbean cruise.

Three months after snapping what she said she thought were pictures of colorful fish, Patti Muldowney and her husband said they realized that one picture contained what they believe appear to be human remains.

"When I looked at that photo, I said, 'By darn, that certainly does look like a skeleton,' " John Muldowney told HLN's "Nancy Grace" on Friday. "You can see the skull. You can see where the eye sockets were. You can see where the chin was.

"It's lying flat on its back. And its arms are cradled around. You can almost see fingers. And then on the one sleeve it looks like some kind of maybe clothing that's deteriorating."


The couple, who took the photo to police and the FBI, said it was taken near a shipwreck.

<snip>

In underwater burials, it is typical for arms, legs and other extremities to be dispersed and for lighter bones to be carried away from heavier bones by fish, wildlife and water, according to Heather Walsh-Haney, a forensic anthropologist.

"It looks as if there's something that may be on top of the skeleton," Walsh-Haney said of the image in the photograph. "That would certainly bode well for preserving the center of the mass of the body and keeping most of it there."

Dr. Marty Makary, a physician who serves on the faculty at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, said he sees mixed signs, some indicating the image may not be a skeleton.

"What I don't like about the photo is there's no spinal cord or vertebral column," he said. "In fact, below this roundish skull-type profile you see a curvature which doesn't really represent a normal spinal column."

CNN's Tracy Sabo and Philip Rosenbaum contributed to this report.

© 2010 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well, that answers some questions I had. It's just now making national news because the Muldowney's noticed it in vacation pictures three months later. Notified the FBI, which has no record of recieving it. Figures.

Concerning the skull vertabrae, etc., the skull is angled down severely with chin on chest (such as it is). There are four visible evenly spaced connectors at neck to a rounded top of her body area. I have zero experience and even less knowledge of skeletal analysis, and I appreciate the doctor's concern on not appearing to have vertabrae column, but appears to be skull resting down on chest to me.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

from email: the face is to the left or to the right? I thought the face of the skull is the right side, almost facing up. I thought maybe the arm is showing and maybe a hand? I do not see a leg or foot/ shoe. I see the rock. Can you outline on the photo what you see?

well, you're not alone. Look at the CNN photo in the link. They "spotlighted" the picture to highlight the skull, and cut off the top of the face. They have no clue what they're highlighting.

Using that picture as a reference, the picture cuts off at eye level. The face is to the left, tilted upward to left. When you go down to my second and third pictures where I blow it up, the eye sockets are what's cut off. Below that on the left side is nose bones, open mouth with slightly protruding front teeth, and chin against chest.

The dark area of dress lies alomg the top of the rock. On the left side of the picture the dark dress stops. Look back just a little to the right and you can see a lighter colored leg desending from the dress, ending in a shoe heel. The dark shoe outline can be seen with toe wedged in crevice of rock.

If for example Natalee was wearing miniskirt and sandals, this wouldn't appear to me to be miniskirt and sandals. The dress is longer and the shoe appears to be ankle high. Could be something wrapped around her instead of a dress, I don't know, could be someone else, but that's what it looks like.

Also concentric ringed pole to right side of picture looks decorative and tossed in with her, I would think.

Thanks for making the effort to examine the pictures. Much appreciated.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

from ABC News, this interesting quote:

[Spokeswoman Angela] added that it was not uncommon for human remains to be found off the coast and cautioned that even if a body was discovered it might not be Holloway.

Really? What does that mean? What bodies are found off the coast, and why hasn't anyone mentioned they found a body off the coast and were checking to see if it was Natalee Holloway in the last five years?

Aruban authorities are supposed to be looking this weekend and possibly announcing something first of week.

rd

Natalee Holloway's Remains? Aruba Divers to Examine Area
ABC News
March 21, 2010

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/natalee-holloways-remains-aruba-divers-examine-area-couple/story?id=10156542
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

from HelpFindTheMissing, Orchid Corsage wrote:
I keep checking to see if there is any news.

rd, thanks for blowing up the pictures. I just realized from the remark by John Muldowney, where the loca is where the picture had been taken. I believe from all I have read the chances of Natalee's remains being found there are not very good. I don't know if I want to be right or not. I pray for Beth and Dave, their Natalee will be found some day, may God Bless them!


You're welcome, Orchid Corsage. I spent some time (an hour or two) examining the blowups before posting them. I put months into blowing up (and trying to identify artifacts) the Jennifer Kesse POI pictures, and a false determination of this picture would lower credibility of all my other work. If I did not think it was identifiably a skull and remains I wouldn't have posted the blowups.

But the skull and dress / covering and even a leg and shoe appear to be very detailed and at least preliminarily identifiable as such. Certainly worth examining by a scuba team to identify, and face of skull too detailed (eyes, open mouth and teeth, chin, back of skull, neck ) to be a rock formation.

Many people have spent much more time and in depth on Natalee's disappearance than I have (such as yourself, I'm sure.) I am curious why you think this is an unlikely spot for Natalee's remains to be found. It is described as just offshore by the cruise line tourists, in snorkeling water depth, near a shipwreck site. We know a boat shack was broken into that night and some items such as a crab trap (IIRC) missing. Dumping Natalee with an anchoring object off shore from a small boat has always seemed most likely what what's his name (don't really care to think about him right now) did with her that night.

Is this something that isn't right for your scenario to think it's probably not Natalee?

By the way, I don't know off hand what Natalee was wearing that night, but probably not the length of dress / covering this seems to be, and the shoe appears to be ankle high and somewhat of a wide high heel to it, so is not what I would be expecting Natalee to be wearing. It may not be Natalee (someone else? yet another woman dumped offshore?), or may not be human remains despite appearing to me to be, but location wise I thought this would be expected for Natalee's remains.

Is there a thought that she wouldn't be offshore at all, or farther out, or a different location of the island? As I understand it from press reports, this is off the south end of the island where the beaches are.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

from HTFM, AmyE posted this picture at bottom of:
http://helpfindthemissing.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20859&page=4

Thanks, Amy. There's not all that much material in relation to the size of the skull. I would estimate the size of that top, and there are actually some light green areas with dark spots as on that top.

It's possible.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

from HTFM, Amusedtdth posted picture of sea snake at bottom of:
http://helpfindthemissing.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20859&page=4

The ringed object in the Natallee Holloway underwater pic is perfectly straight and tapers to an end looking more like a pool cue than a snake in the portion visible in the picture.

It is very beautiful, even more so than the strikingly pretty snake pictured in the link. There are alternating light on dark, dark on light patterns within the alternating dark / light rings. If a snake, it is dragging the tail portion straight at this moment in the picture.

The picture cuts the object off toward the base, unknown how long it could be, but it is gradually getting thicker as it gets to the base to the right side.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

from CNN on Arubans finding the location, taking pictures, and sending to forensics in Holland, Tim Miller is quoted:
Now, you know what I think that it`s rock formation. When we did the deep-water search over there two and a half years ago, we found many formations that looked like it could be a body. And in the -- you know it Jane, it would be totally impossible for a skeleton to be intact at the bottom of the sea in Aruba with the currents and the waves as strong as they are.

You know, I could see maybe finding a skull or something, but for it to be intact without it being in some type of container, I just don`t see that happening.


well, first of all, I'm not sure how "intact" anything is. There is a skull, disconnected somewhat from a rounded area. Then there is what looks like a patterned cloth. There is not much form to it, there may not be much beneath it.

Secondly, the covering is up against the rock. It's not out in the open as if lying undisturbed. I don't think it's out of the question that a covering would have not entirely disintegrated.

Thirdly, there appears to me to be a shoe wedged in a rock crevice. That may even be helping to anchor the covering,

Having said that, you'd think that if someone dived down and took pictures that they'd be able to see whether it's a skull or not, not send a picture to Holland for them to say whether they took a picture of a skull or not. Pretty goofy stuff there, I can only guess that they didn't see any human remains and will let some forensics person in Holland say that at some later point.

Nevertheless, this is more than an image of a man in the moon or a pattern that resembles a face, etc. that is commonly thought of in these situations (and dismissed just as readily on that assumption),

This is an actual formation whose edges have the precise features of a face and skull, including down the left side eye sockets, an area for a nose, an open mouth with front teeth somewhat protruding out, a distinctive chin, and a separation at the neck with some bone like connectors to a rounded feature that would resemble the top of a torso. And going up the right side is a perfectly flat back of the skull rounding around to the top of the skull.

You couldn't carve a skull and skeletal face out of a rock better than that. Supposedly a natural feature? Well I guess we can add a naturally occurring perfectly shaped shoe formation at the other end, and in between plant growth that emulates clothes.

Nope, not that many coincidences in life I don't think. Or in death in this case.

Caveat. Yes, I know the eyes play tricks on you. You have to lean back and let the image come to you, not force an interpretation, else yes you are likely to see things that aren't there. :)

Now, if they actually found the site and swam over it and took pictures I would think it'd be put to rest already. I would think that if divers clearly could see that it's just rocks, they would say so. Sending pictures of rocks to Holland seems sort of silly.

There was also a mention that Beth Holloway is in Aruba. Actually I just talked myself into thinking the no comment is more significant than not.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

from Birmingham News:

Today Aruban officials said that police divers went out Saturday and Sunday and found nothing but can't be sure they have the right spot.

"They cannot pinpoint the location and that is the problem," Ann Angela, spokeswoman for the Aruban prosecutor's office, said this morning. She said the couple who provided a picture showing what could be an underwater rock formation or human remains directed authorities to the general area and a local expert helped narrow it further, but more research is necessary. Angela said divers plan to go out again later this week.


This makes more sense than the info I saw from CNN that divers took photos of the site and sent to Holland. ??? Like they can't figure out if they're looking at a skull or not?

So I wondered why no comment, and they haven't found it actually makes sense.

rd

Divers in Aruba will search more for possible skeleton in Natalee Holloway case
By Hannah K. Wolfson
Birmingham News
March 23, 2010

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/03/natalee_holloway_aruba_skeleto_1.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I could link a bunch of news articles, but the bottom line is they can't find the site so now they're looking for the tour guide.

The tour guide hasn't talked to them with all this publicity? The Muldowney's say look for a tour guide who got $40 for letting them move their scooter on and off the boat for the tour.

And the search for Natalee, errr make that a tour guide, goes on.

Now, why do people keep saying intact when referring to this picture? There is nothing that indicates intact in this picture whatsoever. The only important part, the skull, is not even mentioned and instead this thing about impossibility of intact is repeated over and over.

And there isn't even anything intact.

There appears to be some material below the skull but that's it. I would estimate in relation to the skull about the size of her top, and it does resemble it.

The skull is quite detailed in the facial features, open mouth and upper teeth, chin, etc., as well as a perfectly shaped complete skull. Yes, the skull is intact, but that's all that I can see that's intact. I have no idea why the tv commentators referred to anything being intact. They clearly can't see anything that is. They just more or less dismiss something they assume for some reason as impossible, which is sort of silly therefore to assume.

I guess it was the Muldowney's comment they thought they saw a hand, that the body was sort of in a clasped arms position. I think that set the stage for some of the commentary that followed.

However, there are no arms or sleeves to be seen, so while some are saying there is no way there are any, there has not been any serious contention that any such thing can be seen.

Yeah, I've seen a couple of posts where someone thinks they saw a sleeve, and there is a dark extension to the left that could be an arm, but the few comments about arms and sleeves go along with the comments about a pile of rocks. Not based on any substance, just mostly opinion from a high level view.

I've looked at the image blowup carefully when I posted it, and I did not see anything that could be construed about the area along the left of the rock below the skull other than resembles material, say a dress or the green top she's wearing in the picture.

But there's no form whatsoever to it, or bones, that I can see, and therefore there is absolutely nothing intact whatsoever. Most internet commenters on the crime sites stress this repeatedly about unlikeliness of being intact, but I've yet to see anything intact. I guess everyone assumes someone thinks there is an intact skeleton with a skull.

Why a clearly seen skull would be disregarded because of an unseen arm or sleeve is puzzling.

In addition to the piece of clothing with the skull, I see a very clearly shaped shoe wedged in a rock crevice below the material (and apparently I'm the only one who sees it, haven't heard it mentioned anywhere), but that's all I see. So I think the intact thing, and the belief it's impossible, has thrown everyone off. It's actually very tangential to the skull anyway, which is what is clearly seen.

Or at least I clearly see it. I can't count the number of upper front teeth, but it's almost that detailed.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

from websleuths, LogicalMinds wrote:
Because medical experts have also said that this "skull" has orbital sockets so low that the "eyes" would be on the cheeks

Because the "skull" seems to be on backwards

I think it is rocks

and yes, people here have said sleeves

in fact the guy whose wife photographed it said "sleeves"

people are posting misinformation and rumors and speculation without labeling it as such.


Agreed, it should be labelled as such.

Yes, the wife said sleeves, and a couple of people were trying to see them. There are none to be seen, at a detailed level. Logic that says this isn't Natalee because of impossibilities concerning intactness and limbs address the act of looking for sleeves in a sort of heavy handed way. There are no sleeves, and no contention it is Natalee because of sleeves.

But as for the skull, I am contending there is nothing visible ruling it out as a skull. It is a skull on its side, face to the left. I've seen a couple of experts quoted and a couple of posts that mention neither face up or face down looks realistic. It is face to the left. There is nothing backwards about it.

As for Natalee's father who today like the vast majority said after looking at the picture he thinks it's a pile of rocks, coral formation, etc., I contend that there is no way a person can look at the picture as is and make any kind of determination whatsoever. It is impossible. The detail to make the determination can't be seen in that view.

I blew it up to two larger sizes. In the largest blowup, the third image down in the link (I posted earlier in the thread, but will include again for this post. There is a bit of description and then an images link), the skull takes up the entire screen. There is not one detail that deviates markedly from a skull. Every detail of the face, from eye sockets to mouth, upper teeth, to chin, and separation of skull at neck area, flat back of skull, and curvature at top of skull. If it's a rock, it's a skull carved out of rock.

Now if someone looks at that detail and sees something that they can describe rules it out as a skull, I would be most interested in hearing it.

Possible Natalee Holloway underwater off Aruba - pictures

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

from websleuths. 2curious wrote:
Thank you rd for the enlargements of the photos. I tried to bring them here but they were too large.

thanks 2curious, but they are so large they would mess up a forum page (width). Getting the skull in the third image centered on screen is quite eye opening. I am not a forensics person but I don't know how anyone could ask for more of a pure skull shot.

I remain cautiously optimistic that they will resume looking when they find the tour guide who can tell them where he took the scuba expedition. On the other hand I've seen warnings here and elsewhere that it is unlikely given their history in this.

Still, this picture was taken from a cruise line tourist scuba excursion, so I don't see why the site couldn't be found again by anyone.

The sooner the better. Taking another picture won't disturb evidence. If it's not a skull, should be able to get another set of pictures of what it is.

It certainly merits the effort to search for Natalee, in my opinion.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Jennifer Kesse and similar disappearances All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group