A bit more about the Necklace

I am going to make one more comment on the "necklace" pictures, posted last evening. Ironically, as I was working on this, a comment came in which expressed my questions and feelings on this perfectly.

On necklaces like this, the pendant - in this case a cross - is almost always "free floating." In other words, you can slide the pendant back and forth on the chain. (How many times have we all seen people "futzing" with a necklace like this?) Looking at the cross carefully, I believe that oblong loop on the top of it is one that will allow it to move back and forth on the chain.

First, I agree that the "without" picture is much more grainy and the chain might not be clearly visible. But the cross will be. The cross is large enough that even with the blurry aspects it should show up. If it doesn't, there are only two possibilities. The first, of course, is that it's gone. The second is that the cross has slipped either under her collar on the right (as we face the picture, this would be HER left) or it has slipped behind the fold of the collar on the left (HER right.)

Fine. This is possible. But the length of the chain has to be consistent in both pictures. If you say the necklace is there, you must agree that the length of the chain can't change. Play with a short necklace yourself. In the first "With" picture, the chain follows the line of her collar. The chain and her collar are very nearly parallel lines. (See, I took Geometry in High School!) I printed out a few copies of this picture, and tried to engineer where the cross would have to be if it can't be seen. If the cross is hidden on one side or the other, the chain on that side shortens. Then, the chain on the other side gets longer - and the angle sharper. Instead of following the line of her collar, it would cut across her neck, sharply. And I believe that it would be visible, even with the blurriness of her skin in the shot. Thus, I stand by my statement that the necklace isn't there.

I also agree, however, with the commentor in the last post, who asks, rather plaintively, What does this mean? My only answer is "I don't know." I really don't. IF there is some skulduggery with these pictures (and given the combination of their timely appearance precisely on the day they were needed (a lot, come to think about it, like Bristol's timely five month pregnancy) coupled with the fact that no one has yet stated they he or she was the photographer) one would be a fool to not at least consider that possibility. But I can't put together any scenario. If one picture is real, and the other is created from it, then the necklace should be there. If the pictures were taken at different times, you can't explain the identical nature of her hair. Honestly, I don't know.

I am turning these pictures over to a forensic Photoshop expert. The report that I will get will be on a letterhead, signed by a real person, who will give an opinion that would be comparable to something he would give in court. I commit to all those who read here, that regardless of what the opinion says, I will publish it in full on this blog.