reply to post by Phage
You#re not very good at this are you ? or you are just acting deliberately dumb f0or some reason. It establishes both photos were, in all probability,
taken from the same place and as such, pretty much means she wasn't in her car.
if she was in her car, then she was pressed, literally right up against the window and unless it was some sort of van, which is possible, some of the
hood should be clearly visible. It isn't there is not one solid trace of a car's interior or superstructure. Just a slight blur that could have any
number of reasons, other than it being the reflection of a car window. You want it to be a car window so you have, arbitrarily, in the face of the
evidence against it being stronger than for it, that it was taken through a window.
Overlaying the two pictures as i did, which was a simple enough task err on the side of supporting her story about where she took the picture from
EXACTLY, not the street, not the town not the district, but to within a couple of yards , probably, less.
That is, the witness, when challenged to reproduce the scene, did so exactly. That, to me, is a plus for the witness.
The only evidence the *its through glass brigade , have managed to unearth is that. it is cos i say it is, it's obvious. That's not science, it's
opinion, based on personal prejudice.
There's nothing wrong with opinions, but when they are presented as slam dunk "facts" by people who, in the end, haven't done anything more than a
cursory examination and it totally ignores the fact that. The phone the pictures was taken on is a touch screen, or a something that is carried about
one's person and liable to have any number of smears and imperfections on its' screen. it is just pure personal prejudice to demand that one is
right until the case has been propriety examined.
I will repeat it for those who have trouble understanding the English language. So far, it seems about 95% certain the witness showed the news
reporter, not just the rough area she took the photos, but the exact spot and was pictured, standing in that exact spot. Given that the press
photographer's photo was not taken through a car window, it is fair to assume, as the two photos line up almost perfectly, that neither did the
witness.. It's not 100% for sure, but it does go a decent way to dismissing the idea the picture was taken from a car.