Stupid Murderers' Kodak Moments, or *Really* Gross Fakery?
Grinch
(Checked the FAQ, and the Archive, and recent a.f.u. postings via
DejaNews. Nothing found ...)
Can anyone debunk (or verify) the story below -- and more importantly,
the accompanying photographs -- which have been circulating for the
last few monhts on the Web and Usenet?
Supposedly, a woman and her boyfriend murdered her husband, then decided
to try for a Darwin Award by (1) taking pictures of themselves cavorting
nude with pieces of the corpse as they dismembered it; and (2) taking the
film to the local K Mart to be developed -- thus assuring their rapid
arrest and conviction for Murder One.
The aficionados at alt.tasteless.pictures would love to think these are
real, but since such a case would seem likely to have gained some
notoriety, and nobody can ID it, many are doubtful.
In an ongoing thread discussing these pix on alt.true-crime (which can be
found via Deja News by searching "Natural Born Losers"), various posters
have added these purported details: the crime was committed in the early
1980s; supposedly in Prince Georges County, Maryland; the nasty couple
were under the influence of drugs; and the photos are used in a lecture
that one Russ Vorpagel, J.D., FBI (retired) gives to law enforcement
officers. But even with all these details the criminals and case remain
unidentified.
One poster claims that three law-enforcement officers have e-mailed him
saying they'd seen the pictures in the Vorpagel lectures in recent years
-- but nobody's been able to reach Mr. Vorpagel. The other details are
all of the "somebody told me" variety as well.
But man, the pictures are immediate enough!
WARNING: If you follow the URL given below to the photos you will find
that, fake or not, they are _very_ graphic. The humor of a couple of
murderous corpse mutilators (or almost equally sick pranksters) isn’t for
everyone. The nudity is entirely unattractive too. Not for the squeamish.
You've been warned.
--
>On Sep 01, 1996 00:11:35 in <alt.binaries.pictures.tasteless>,
>'dan...@koffee.vip.best.com (Dani_K)' wrote:
>
>Sorry for posting this twice guys, but I was afraid some of you
>might have missed it under the previous header. I meant to change
>the header the first time.
>
>The nbl series complete with text can be found at Dan's Gallery
>of the Grotesque. The address is:
>
>http://www.grotesque.com/html/gotg_losers_intro.html
>
>I'll cut and paste the story here.
>
><From Dan's Gallery of the Grotesque>:
>
>:A biker bimbette decided that she'd rather be rid of her husband,
>:so she coaxed her boyfriend to stop by for an impromptu soiree.
>:As she beguiled her hubby by fellating him while he relaxed on
>:the couch, her boyfriend switftly dispatched him with a shot at
>:pointblank range. To celebrate her husband's untimely and
>:expeditious demise, the couple proceded to "get naked", dismember
>:the body, and capture the festivities with their trusty 110 pocket
>:camera.
>:
>:However, there now was the minor issue of developing the photos.
>:The couple went to a local discount department store where a
>:"friend" worked; he was more than happy to process the film for
>:them. Unfortunately, the individual who packed the prints into the
>:envelope wasn't one of their buddies; this person saw what the
>:photos portrayed, and immediately called the authorities.
>:
>:Needless to say, the photographs made for a charming display as
>:State's evidence at the couple's trial, and the rest of the tale
>:is a matter of public record. Now they're serving 30-year to life
>:sentences in some hell-hole, though in the infinite wisdom of
>:American justice, they will be up for parole in 2014.
>
>I will add a few comments of my own. I believe these pics are
>real. My reason for believing they are real is primarily #07.
>I've seen a lot of people trying to prove they aren't real
>because the parts where we are seeing the head and foot, etc.
>neatly set up on a little stand could easily be faked; but guys,
>I've seen a lot of faked pics and #07 would be the best damn fake
>I've EVER seen if it isn't real.
>
>Also, I think Dan's story is slightly incorrect. The discoloration
>of the head and right arm of the corpse causes me to believe that
>our hero had been dead a bit longer than a few minutes when they
>started the cutting. I'm guessing a few hours, possibly a day.
>That's strictly a guess. My experience with human corpses is very
>limited. Most of the corpses I've had the opportunity to examine
>closely had a lot more hair than people do.
>
>I've heard that it would be impossible for a case like this to be
>essentially unknown and that makes me laugh. In my very not so
>humble opinion, that's pollyanna thinking. There have been
>hundreds of thousand of heinous crimes that have never made
>the national news, much less the international news, and anyone
>who thinks this is too horrible to be anything but another 'crime
>of the century' must be awfully young (again in my very not so
>humble opinion). These people weren't OJ Simpson or one of the
>Kennedys. They were nobodys. Probably on a minimal income,
>obviously not very bright. And they only killed one guy, hell it
>was a simple spousal murder. Mainstream press misses shit like
>this all the time. If you don't think so, get out and talk to
>people. Someone you know has been involved in a horrible crime
>that never even made a paragraph in you local paper.
>
>I've also heard rumors that these 12 pics are not all the pics
>there are, that supposedly some law enforcement types have seen
>another set where some necrophilia is being practiced. That
>sounds more like urban legend to me, but I'm withholding judgement.
>
>Dani K.
Lance Clarke
...and as the Sun shown brightly on that new day,
Grinch stepped forth and bestowed upon us:
>(Checked the FAQ, and the Archive, and recent a.f.u. postings via
>DejaNews. Nothing found ...)
>
>Can anyone debunk (or verify) the story below -- and more importantly,
>the accompanying photographs -- which have been circulating for the
>last few monhts on the Web and Usenet?
<<SNIP a rather interesting story>>
Well, being the sick puppy that I am, I immediately went and took a look at
those pictures. IMHO, fake! Here's why: (from a bit of experience in law
enforcement)
Why was the victim tied up AFTER the fact?
Eyes were still shinny and reflective. (not so several hours post mortem)
That's about it, but anyone could duplicate the effects in those pictures
in their livingroom.
____________________________________________________________________
Lance Clarke | And remember: There's always a lesson to be
Clarke Legal Services | learned from stupidity. Unfortunately, it's
American Red Cross | always the same lesson: Don't Be Stupid.
Wilmot Fire Dept. | -Imp
N9YVK | http://www.concentric.net/~clarke
catherine yronwode
Lance Clarke wrote:
>
> ...and as the Sun shown brightly on that new day,
> Grinch stepped forth and bestowed upon us:
>
> >DejaNews. Nothing found ...)
> >
> >Can anyone debunk (or verify) the story below -- and more importantly,
> >the accompanying photographs -- which have been circulating for the
> >last few monhts on the Web and Usenet?
>
>
> Well, being the sick puppy that I am, I immediately went and took a look at
> those pictures. IMHO, fake! Here's why: (from a bit of experience in law
> enforcement)
>
> Why was the victim tied up AFTER the fact?
>
> Eyes were still shinny and reflective. (not so several hours post mortem)
>
Add to the above the strange and inconsistent use of blue pigment on the
skin to indicate "dead body" status.
> That's about it, but anyone could duplicate the effects in those pictures
> in their livingroom.
Well, probably not "anyone," but i suppose anyone with the least bit of
theatrical makeup experience -- or computer graphics expertise -- could
do it. The only really "convincing" picture is the one with the headless
corpse. That would take some time, skill, and money to fake -- if it
were a faked photo. But i suspect we are not only looking at faked
photos but at PHOTOSHOPPED photos. And that just takes time.
catherine yronwode ---------------------- mailto:yron...@sonic.net
Lucky W Amulet Archive --- http://www.sonic.net/yronwode/LuckyW.html
The Sacred Landscape - http://www.sonic.net/yronwode/sacredland.html
Karezza and Tantra ---- http://www.sonic.net/yronwode/sacredsex.html
Freemasonry for Women - http://www.sonic.net/yronwode/CoMasonry.html
Fit to Print ----------- http://www.sonic.net/yronwode/ftpindex.html
Lucas Stults
> Lance Clarke wrote:
> >
> > ...and as the Sun shown brightly on that new day,
> > Grinch stepped forth and bestowed upon us:
> >
> > >(Checked the FAQ, and the Archive, and recent a.f.u. postings via
> > >DejaNews. Nothing found ...)
> > >
> > >Can anyone debunk (or verify) the story below -- and more importantly,
> > >the accompanying photographs -- which have been circulating for the
> > >last few monhts on the Web and Usenet?
It's amazing that anyone would think these photos/stories were real.
1: No names are provided, though this would clearly have generated massive
media coverage. How come we didn't see this on the evening news? They
claim the couple is "serving 30 years", indicating they were caught, but
they don't supply names?!? And since when do you only get 30 years for
this kind of crime?
2: You're asked to believe a "Too stupid to live" premise. Is there
anyone on the planet dumbass enough to photograph themselves during the
commission of a homocide?
3: The body paint used on the model, then later on the dummy are
inconsistant. We're apparently supposed to believe that he turns
completely blue, then slowly regains flesh tone as they dismember him. In
one photo, the blue is clearly smearing off the guy's face, revealing
normal skin below.
4: The "corpse" looses about 40 lbs during the photo shoot, and NOT from
being decapitated. =)
5: They tied up a corpse? Why? Afraid it'd run for help?
My final score: 8 for creativity, 6 for execution, -2 for believability.
Keith M. Ellis
Lucas Stults (LSTULS...@mediaform.com) spake thusly:
: 2: You're asked to believe a "Too stupid to live" premise. Is there
: anyone on the planet dumbass enough to photograph themselves during the
: commission of a homocide?
On this point, I differ with you. Didn't the infamous KH thing in Canada
involve just the same kind of stupidity? And, anyway, most crimes are
stupid and committed by stupid people. Why would murder be any different?
As an aside, that's what I really liked about the film "Fargo." It seemed
to me to be kind of an amusing form of cinema verite: stupid people
getting in over their heads, and being surprised about it.
-Keith
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Gödel,Socrates,T.Amos,W.S.Burroughs,Shakespeare,T.Reznor,Q.Tarantino |
| P.Jillette,D.Hofstadter,Y.Berra,Turing,Sartre,Ginsburg,Eco,C.Jones |
| O.Sacks,O.Welles,Zappa,Hawking,M.Kinsley,Russell,B.Bunny,D.Large |
| kme...@texas.net kme...@nmt.edu kme...@austin.asc.slb.com |
| http://www.nmt.edu/~kmellis/homepage.html |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Rudolph
kme...@millenium.texas.net (Keith M. Ellis) writes:
>And, anyway, most crimes are
>stupid and committed by stupid people.
Perhaps, indeed, most human acts are stupid and committed by stupid
people. Have you evidence (can you imagine evidence?) that crimes
are disproportionately s&cbsp?
When formulating your response, please take into account the likelihood
that many, possibly most, crimes (like many acts in other categories,
and few acts in others) are never detected, and that (for some relevant
definition of "stupid") the stupid crimes committed by stupid people
may be disproporionately detectable.
Lee "most usenet posts are stupid and committed by stupid people,
but not in this group, no sir, not at all" Rudolph
Meredith Tanner
In article <50hkb7$j...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
Grinch <Ol'Na...@Seus.com> wrote:
>Supposedly, a woman and her boyfriend murdered her husband, then decided
>to try for a Darwin Award by (1) taking pictures of themselves cavorting
>nude with pieces of the corpse as they dismembered it; and (2) taking the
>film to the local K Mart to be developed -- thus assuring their rapid
>arrest and conviction for Murder One.
>In an ongoing thread discussing these pix on alt.true-crime (which can be
>found via Deja News by searching "Natural Born Losers"), various posters
>have added these purported details: the crime was committed in the early
>1980s; supposedly in Prince Georges County, Maryland; the nasty couple
>were under the influence of drugs; and the photos are used in a lecture
>that one Russ Vorpagel, J.D., FBI (retired) gives to law enforcement
>officers. But even with all these details the criminals and case remain
>unidentified.
well, i can't offer any concrete proof one way or the
other, but in the early 1980s i was a very ghoulish
teenager living in Prince George's County, MD, and i
have a hard time believing that anything like this
could have happened so close to home without my
hearing about it, either from friends or on the news.
m
--
"and if I die before I learn to speak
can money pay for all the days i lived awake but half asleep"
-- primitive radio gods
Keith M. Ellis
Lee Rudolph (lrud...@panix.com) spake thusly:
: When formulating your response, please take into account the likelihood
: that many, possibly most, crimes (like many acts in other categories,
: and few acts in others) are never detected, and that (for some relevant
: definition of "stupid") the stupid crimes committed by stupid people
: may be disproporionately detectable.
Right. I should have been more clear. I meant *detected* crimes, really.
The post I responded to had made the claim that people murdering somebody
and taking pictures of it was too stupid to be believed. Really, is there
any doubt that the opposite is true?
Still, certain high-risk crimes, such as murder, I would guess are
committed by a disproportionate number of
less-than-normally-endowed-with-intelligence individuals. Now that I
think about it, though, high-risk crimes are probably split between the
extremes.
I am no exception: almost all of the crimes I have committed have been
inexcusably stupid. My inability to do a decent cost/benefit analysis
should automaticaly deduct 20 points off of any claimed IQ you may see me
make.
James Linn
In article <50l0sh$n...@news2.texas.net>, kme...@millenium.texas.net
(Keith M. Ellis) wrote:
> Lucas Stults (LSTULS...@mediaform.com) spake thusly:
> : 2: You're asked to believe a "Too stupid to live" premise. Is there
> : anyone on the planet dumbass enough to photograph themselves during the
> : commission of a homocide?
>
> On this point, I differ with you. Didn't the infamous KH thing in Canada
> involve just the same kind of stupidity? And, anyway, most crimes are
> stupid and committed by stupid people. Why would murder be any different?
The Bernardo/Homolka thing involved somewaht less stupidity. They used
videotape which didn't require someone else to process it. And by the time
it had happened, Bernardo had sucessfully gotten away with dozens of rapes
and eluded a special task force which had identified him as a suspect, but
failed to find enough evidence. Thus he arrogantly thought he could get
away from it. He was far from stupid. He was very arrogant.
And the video tapes were not found by the police in their exhaustive, week
long search of the house. Their presense was relayed to Homolka's lawyer,
who eventually cound't morally keep the secret and continue to work for
the accused. So it seems Bernardo's arrogance was somewhat justified.
For the record, I do have knowledge of a case in which a child
pornographer took indecent photos and took them to the photo chain for
which I worked many years ago. His name and phone number on the envelope
were fake, so he thought he was safe. The police assigned an undercover
cop to the mall. When he picked up the photos (on the day they were due no
less), he walked into the parking lot, where the plainclothes cop was
waiting, having been tipped off the moment the man left the store, and
having had a description relayed to him. The fact that he had the evidence
in his hands nailed him.
I'm sorry I have no corroborative evidence to back this up. It never made
the papers. I knew well the people at the store where this took place and
there was no inconsistancy in their stories.
Perhaps he was under the impression that our large central lab was so
computerized that no one looked at the prints (this was in the days before
mini-labs were so pervasive). Its a common misconception, since the chain
hyped their computerised quality checking system. But the system stil to
this day requires that a human view the photos as a last ditch effort to
catch anything the computer missed.
In any case it counts as some sort of proof that stupidity happens, and we
should be suprised when it does.
James Linn
My opinions are MINE,MINE,MINE!!!
Lance Clarke
...and as the Sun shown brightly on that new day,
>In article <322CE0...@sonic.net>, yron...@sonic.net wrote:
>
>> Lance Clarke wrote:
>> >
>> > ...and as the Sun shown brightly on that new day,
>> > Grinch stepped forth and bestowed upon us:
>> >
>> > >(Checked the FAQ, and the Archive, and recent a.f.u. postings via
>> > >DejaNews. Nothing found ...)
>> > >
>> > >Can anyone debunk (or verify) the story below -- and more importantly,
>> > >the accompanying photographs -- which have been circulating for the
>> > >last few monhts on the Web and Usenet?
>
>
>It's amazing that anyone would think these photos/stories were real.
You were a bit vague in the way you quoted previous text.
I was the first in the "this is bullshit" reply thread. I agree with your
observations and conclusions on this matter.
Brian Scearce
Grinch <Ol'Na...@Seus.com> writes:
> Can anyone debunk (or verify) the story below -- and more importantly,
> the accompanying photographs -- which have been circulating for the
> last few monhts on the Web and Usenet?
The "intro" page has credits for photograper and photo retouch. It's
not even a hoax, it's just fiction.
--
Brian Scearce b...@best.com
Read, think, (possibly) post -- do not alter this order.
christine gazak
Lance Clarke (cla...@concentric.net) wrote:
: Grinch stepped forth and bestowed upon us:
:
: >Can anyone debunk (or verify) the story below -- and more importantly,
: >last few monhts on the Web and Usenet?
:
: Well, being the sick puppy that I am, I immediately went and took a look at
: those pictures. IMHO, fake! Here's why: (from a bit of experience in law
: enforcement)
:
: Why was the victim tied up AFTER the fact?
:
: Eyes were still shinny and reflective. (not so several hours post mortem)
: That's about it, but anyone could duplicate the effects in those pictures
: in their livingroom.
Good god! You mean he was still alive while they were cutting him up?
Is this evidence that there are people low enough to manufacture snuff
*photos*, and that you're willing to come to our houses and teach us how?
Christine Gazak
James Nicoll
In article <50l0sh$n...@news2.texas.net>,
Keith M. Ellis <kme...@millenium.texas.net> wrote:
>Lucas Stults (LSTULS...@mediaform.com) spake thusly:
>: 2: You're asked to believe a "Too stupid to live" premise. Is there
>: anyone on the planet dumbass enough to photograph themselves during the
>: commission of a homocide?
>
>On this point, I differ with you. Didn't the infamous KH thing in Canada
>involve just the same kind of stupidity? And, anyway, most crimes are
>stupid and committed by stupid people. Why would murder be any different?
If memory serves, Bernardo/Teale and Homolka videotaped the
rapes, not the murders and if memory further serves, B/T isn't visible
in the tapes, which is why he eventually was willing to hand them over:
Karla was the one who was going to get hosed by the visual evidence,
except that she plead-bargained her way to a short sentence by fingering
her partner in crime.
Now, the Moors Murders in the 1950s might have had audio recordings
of the murders: does anyone remember.
James Nicoll
--
" The moral, if you're a scholar don't pick up beautiful babes on deserted
lanes at night. Real Moral, Chinese ghost stories have mostly been written
by scholars who have some pretty strange fantasies about women."
Brian David Phillips
Rael A. Fenchurch
> Now, the Moors Murders in the 1950s might have had audio recordings
>of the murders: does anyone remember.
Well, they certainly had audio-tapes of the torturing, but I don't recall ever
hearing they had tapes of the actual deaths... Fine line, though, even if they
didn't...
Rael "what can one say?" ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Rael A. Fenchurch (ra...@midnight.org, http://www.midnight.org/rael/) ---
--- "I don't think compassion's the language of our time" ---
--- "It's *almost* Midnight" - http://www.midnight.org +++ "Doubt or Die" ---
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Clarke
>: That's about it, but anyone could duplicate the effects in those pictures
>: in their livingroom.
>
>Good god! You mean he was still alive while they were cutting him up?
>Is this evidence that there are people low enough to manufacture snuff
>*photos*, and that you're willing to come to our houses and teach us how?
Um, what?!
Susan Carroll-Clark
Greetings!
>On this point, I differ with you. Didn't the infamous KH thing in Canada
>involve just the same kind of stupidity?
Similar, although what was taped were the sexual assaults, not the
murders and subsequent disposals of the bodies.
Susan "oversharing! three beer penalty! loss of down!" Carroll-Clark
scl...@chass.utoronto.ca
Matt Beckwith
James...@nortel.com (James Linn) wrote:
>For the record, I do have knowledge of a case in which a child
>pornographer took indecent photos and took them to the photo chain for
>which I worked many years ago. His name and phone number on the envelope
>were fake, so he thought he was safe. The police assigned an undercover
>cop to the mall. When he picked up the photos (on the day they were due no
>less), he walked into the parking lot, where the plainclothes cop was
>waiting, having been tipped off the moment the man left the store, and
>having had a description relayed to him. The fact that he had the evidence
>in his hands nailed him.
>Perhaps he was under the impression that our large central lab was so
>computerized that no one looked at the prints (this was in the days before
>mini-labs were so pervasive). Its a common misconception, since the chain
>hyped their computerised quality checking system. But the system stil to
>this day requires that a human view the photos as a last ditch effort to
>catch anything the computer missed.
What's the purpose of having people look at the photos--to catch
photos of illegal acts? What reason would the photo lab have for
spending money to pay someone to perform a police function for the
community?
By the way, how often do photo labs develop pornographic photos?
What do they do when they encounter pornography (that is, sexual acts
or nudity which is not portraying an illegal act)? Is it illegal to
bring film which contains such photos to a photo lab?
Matt Beckwith
me...@crl.com (Meredith Tanner) wrote:
>In article <50hkb7$j...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
>Grinch <Ol'Na...@Seus.com> wrote:
>>Supposedly, a woman and her boyfriend murdered her husband, then decided
>>to try for a Darwin Award by (1) taking pictures of themselves cavorting
>>nude with pieces of the corpse as they dismembered it; and (2) taking the
>>film to the local K Mart to be developed -- thus assuring their rapid
>>arrest and conviction for Murder One.
>[...]
>>In an ongoing thread discussing these pix on alt.true-crime (which can be
>>found via Deja News by searching "Natural Born Losers"), various posters
>>have added these purported details: the crime was committed in the early
>>1980s; supposedly in Prince Georges County, Maryland; the nasty couple
>>were under the influence of drugs; and the photos are used in a lecture
>>that one Russ Vorpagel, J.D., FBI (retired) gives to law enforcement
>>officers. But even with all these details the criminals and case remain
>>unidentified.
>well, i can't offer any concrete proof one way or the
>other, but in the early 1980s i was a very ghoulish
>teenager living in Prince George's County, MD, and i
>have a hard time believing that anything like this
>could have happened so close to home without my
>hearing about it, either from friends or on the news.
I take your point, but it's kind of amusing that you would consider
yourself the limiting factor in deciding whether a murder had
occurred!
Perry B. Friedman
In article <50qil5$o...@ns2.southeast.net>,
Matt Beckwith <beck...@pop.southeast.net> wrote:
>James...@nortel.com (James Linn) wrote:
>>Perhaps he was under the impression that our large central lab was so
>>computerized that no one looked at the prints (this was in the days before
>>mini-labs were so pervasive). Its a common misconception, since the chain
>>hyped their computerised quality checking system. But the system stil to
>>this day requires that a human view the photos as a last ditch effort to
>>catch anything the computer missed.
>
>What's the purpose of having people look at the photos--to catch
>photos of illegal acts? What reason would the photo lab have for
>spending money to pay someone to perform a police function for the
>community?
I think he meant catch errors/problems int he developing processing, not
catch illegal acts.
Perry
catherine yronwode
> Keith M. Ellis <kme...@millenium.texas.net> wrote:
> If memory serves, Bernardo/Teale and Homolka videotaped the
> rapes, not the murders and if memory further serves, B/T isn't visible
> in the tapes, which is why he eventually was willing to hand them over:
> Karla was the one who was going to get hosed by the visual evidence,
> except that she plead-bargained her way to a short sentence by fingering
> her partner in crime.
James Nicoll wrote:
> Now, the Moors Murders in the 1950s might have had audio recordings
> of the murders: does anyone remember.
The Moors Murderers used audio tape.
Add Charles Ng and Leonard Lake, who videotaped torture and murder
sessions in their cabin in rural northern California.
catherine yronwode ---------------------- mailto:yron...@sonic.net
ATTENTION:
Due to a hard drive crash, i have been offline for several days
and have lost much e-mail and my address book. If i owe you e-mail try
again. This message will run for a few days only, so re-contact me now.
Robert Matthews
In article <50qil5$o...@ns2.southeast.net>, beck...@pop.southeast.net
(Matt Beckwith) wrote:
> What's the purpose of having people look at the photos--to catch
> photos of illegal acts? What reason would the photo lab have for
> spending money to pay someone to perform a police function for the
> community?
They do it to catch defects in the photographs which machines can't
recognize.
> By the way, how often do photo labs develop pornographic photos?
> What do they do when they encounter pornography (that is, sexual acts
> or nudity which is not portraying an illegal act)? Is it illegal to
> bring film which contains such photos to a photo lab?
Depends on the photo lab. The big-name chains simply won't touch
home-grown pornography; they'll return your film to you, usually with a
warning not to try it again. If you were so stupid as to try to bring them
photographs demonstrating proof of a crime--murder, child porn--they'd
turn the negatives over to the police without making prints.
For this reason, you can generally find ads in the back of your less
reputable magazines and tabloids for private photo labs that will promise
to develop any film you bring them. Of course, they're going to keep
copies of the good stuff for themselves.
If you have an inclination to take such pictures, your best bet is to
learn to develop photographs yourself. Who knows? If you get good enough
at it, maybe you can start advertising in the back pages of those same
publications.
Robert Matthews
--
jim...@mis.ca
"Childbirth, as a strictly physical phenomenon,
is comparable to driving a United Parcel truck
through an inner tube." --Dave Barry
Mike Holmans
beck...@pop.southeast.net (Matt Beckwith) wrote:
>By the way, how often do photo labs develop pornographic photos?
>What do they do when they encounter pornography (that is, sexual acts
>or nudity which is not portraying an illegal act)? Is it illegal to
>bring film which contains such photos to a photo lab?
Obviously this depends on the jurisdiction.
Last year in UKoGBaNI, the husband of a TV newsreader was arrested
when picking up some photographs of their toddler daughter in the
bath. The charges were eventually dropped, but not before there had
been a lot of tabloid newspaper headlines scandalizing it all.
I'm Pretty Sure that British photo labs vet films for obscenity
because it counts as distribution under the Obscene Publications Act.
Mike "now trepidatious about picking up the photos of AFUUK V4.0"
Holmans
Kat
As for the murderer's photos, check a search engine for "Dan's Gallery
of the Grotesque", photos of this type were on his web site-I saw
them myself-don't know if the site is still up tho'.
The photos were of a man and a woman dismembering another man's body,
starting with a complete body and ending with pictures of dismembered
parts. Looked very real. The accompanying text stated that these
pictures were used as evidence in a murder trial. I found the site by
accident and was fascinated and repulsed at the same time. Other
parts of the site deal with various pictures of death, not for the
weakk of stomach. (Possible URL-www.grotesque.com??-if memory serves-
lost my hard drive and bookmarks last week to an unknown, undetectable
virus).
As for photo lab turning in pornography, there was a case in the papers
here in Mich. about a couple who took "art"-type photos of their
daughter naked and were turned in for child abuse by the photo lab.
The case went to trial. I will check back issues of the Detroit News
and Oakland Press for cites.
Kat "can't think of anything clever here" Doty
Ian A. York
In article <32337820...@news2.aimnet.com>,
Terry Carroll <car...@tjc.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Sep 1996 09:20:24 -0400, James...@nortel.com (James Linn)
>wrote:
>
>>long search of the house. Their presense was relayed to Homolka's lawyer,
>>who eventually cound't morally keep the secret and continue to work for
>>the accused.
>
Well, that's how I remember the case as well. This was, I hesitate to
remind you, in a civilized country, where people's morals are continuously
strengthened by the bracing cold as well as the invigorating sight of
moose wandering down the main streets, so is it possible that the
regulations on lawyers' behaviour are different there? I also recall that
in a Rumpole case the eponymous (squeezed it in again) lawyer was informed
by a client that he (the client) had in fact done what he (the client) was
accused of, at which he (the lawyer) informed him (the client) that he
(the lawyer) was therefore unable to defend him (the client) any longer.
Since Canadian law is closer to British than American, and since what
legal understanding I didn't gain from Lord Peter Wimsey I picked up from
Rumpole, I'm satisfied by this.
Ian "eponymous" York
--
Ian York (iay...@panix.com) <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
"-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England
Terry Carroll
>And the video tapes were not found by the police in their exhaustive, week
>long search of the house. Their presense was relayed to Homolka's lawyer,
>who eventually cound't morally keep the secret and continue to work for
>the accused.
If that's accurate, he should be disbarred.
--
Terry Carroll | "In a professional sports league game played in the
Santa Clara, CA | United States, the head referee ... shall ... in the
car...@tjc.com | event of conflicting calls, review instant replay to
Modell delenda est | determine the correct call." - House Bill H.R. 3096
Terry Carroll
On 5 Sep 1996 09:21:39 -0700, b...@best.com (Brian Scearce) wrote:
>The "intro" page has credits for photograper and photo retouch. It's
>not even a hoax, it's just fiction.
I think the credits for retouching refers to the adding the sytlized
numbers on the icons for the pictures and the logo on the pictures
themselves. Compare, e.g., http://www.grotesque.com/photos/nbl7.jpg (what
is presumabely alleged as an unretouched photo, apart from the logo in the
lower right) and http://www.grotesque.com/photos/nbl7_small.gif (the
tilted tranceparentized small copy with stylized borders and a digit "7"
scrawled onto it) on http://www.grotesque.com/html/gotg_losers_7.html .
I don't think it's legit, but not because of the retouch credit.
Angus Johnston
car...@tjc.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
> On 5 Sep 1996 09:21:39 -0700, b...@best.com (Brian Scearce) wrote:
>
> >The "intro" page has credits for photograper and photo retouch. It's
> >not even a hoax, it's just fiction.
>
> I think the credits for retouching refers to the adding the sytlized
> numbers on the icons for the pictures and the logo on the pictures
> themselves...
>
> I don't think it's legit, but not because of the retouch credit.
I agree on both counts. What sets off the most alarms in my head is the
fact that the scans are small and grainy, while the rest of the
presentation is so polished. If the photos were real, I'd expect the
folks who bame up with the blood spatter background and funky buttons
to blow the pics up huge and clear to maximize effect. If, however,
they were fakes, I'd expect them to be little and murky, as they
are---that'd sugesst realism to the casual observer, but thwart
skeptics in catching fakery.
For what it's worth, none of what I saw looked all that obviously
unphoniable to my layman's eye.
--
Angus Johnston
wai...@the.office
When I first saw these photos (april or May), the discussion at that time also concerned
their legitimacy. Based on the number of photos involved in the series (4 or 5) and the
action that was captured, I concluded that they were fake. Not that I am an expert, but
more along the lines of: If I were taking pictures of this nature, certainly I would
want to take "action" shots of the decapitation in progress, etc. None of these have
ever surfaced, only start, finish, etc. No "Here I am, halfway through his neck with
this hacksaw" pix.
Elvis "no, never convicted" Hanson
Jacques Hankin
Kat <dbe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip>
>As for photo lab turning in pornography, there was a case in the papers
>here in Mich. about a couple who took "art"-type photos of their
>daughter naked and were turned in for child abuse by the photo lab.
>The case went to trial. I will check back issues of the Detroit News
>and Oakland Press for cites.
This happened to a well known news presenter in the UK.
Julia Summerville, a woman who had just gone through a fight with
brain cancer, was taken in to the local nick (police station) with her
partner after they had the audacity to take some photos of their young
children in the bath, and ask them to be developed by a local
laboratory.
father I can tell you it is getting scary.
>Kat "can't think of anything clever here" Doty
Jacques "me too, except I am innocent until proved guilty" Hankin
brian sefton
I know of 2 cases where people were arrested because of pictures sent
to be developed.
The first was when a man who worked in my mother's office, (not a
FOAF), was arrested because he sent pictures to be developed which
showed him molesting a very young boy. (Yes I could supply his name and
the photo-lab. He was arrested, convicted and sentenced to prison.
The second case was in 1991 when an American student studying in China
was arrested and expelled from China when he tried to have pictures
developed of a defaced picture of Chairman Mao. In the picture he had
taken a common Mao poster and attached two mellon halves to the chest
to resemble breasts, and added some lipstick etc.
Brian 'please dont squeeze the chairman' Sefton
James Nicoll
>wrote:
>
>
>>And the video tapes were not found by the police in their exhaustive, week
>>long search of the house. Their presense was relayed to Homolka's lawyer,
>>the accused.
>
>If that's accurate, he should be disbarred.
If memory serves, it was Bernardo's lawyer who quit, and the
existence of the tapes was revealed at Bernardo's order. The lawyer caught
seven kinds of hell for respecting client/lawyer confidentiality from the
press, although I'm not sure that he could have said something without
violating his client's rights (Note that Bernardo *did* end up serving
life, although his ex-wife got off easy with only 12 years) and while
Bernardo is an utter scumball, in general violating confedentiality is
a really bad idea in the adversarial system we use.
Ed Ellers
Matt Beckwith wrote:
> What's the purpose of having people look at the photos--to catch
> photos of illegal acts? What reason would the photo lab have for
> spending money to pay someone to perform a police function for the
> community?
No, the reason is to catch situations where the automated printing
system got the color balance and/or exposure time wrong. (For example,
if a large part of a picture is occupied by a light-yellow car, the
printer may try to "correct" by biasing the color balance toward blue.)
> By the way, how often do photo labs develop pornographic photos?
> What do they do when they encounter pornography (that is, sexual acts
> or nudity which is not portraying an illegal act)? Is it illegal to
> bring film which contains such photos to a photo lab?
If the photos themselves aren't strictly illegal, I expect that most
labs will go ahead and print the negatives (assuming we aren't talking
about slides or movie film). Obviously there's no way to know until the
original film is developed, and in at least some systems the negatives
aren't viewed before printing so the truth wouldn't come out until the
prints had been finished.
FWIW, there was an anecdote in Reader's Digest (I've forgotten the date,
but it was in the late 1930s) that mentioned that one photographer had
had trouble getting his nude slides back from Kodak because Eastman
might have been prosecuted under federal laws regarding sending this
sort of thing through the mail. RD claimed that this fellow's next
batch of film went to Rochester accompanied by two homing pigeons, with
a note instructing the Kodak lab to use the birds for the return trip.
Lucas Stults
> Lucas Stults (LSTULS...@mediaform.com) spake thusly:
> : 2: You're asked to believe a "Too stupid to live" premise. Is there
> : anyone on the planet dumbass enough to photograph themselves during the
> : commission of a homocide?
>
> On this point, I differ with you. Didn't the infamous KH thing in Canada
> involve just the same kind of stupidity? And, anyway, most crimes are
> stupid and committed by stupid people. Why would murder be any different?
Okay, I'll buy the idea that people do stupid things. But you're talking
"I think 911 should be outlawed because people keep looking for the Eleven
on their phone dial" level of stupidity to actually shoot photos like
this, then have em' developed at PhotoMat. =)
Hans Derycke
mrb...@ix.netcom.com(brian sefton ) cost the Net hundreds, if not
thousands of dollars by writing:
>The first was when a man who worked in my mother's office, (not a
>FOAF), was arrested because he sent pictures to be developed which
>showed him molesting a very young boy. (Yes I could supply his name and
>the photo-lab. He was arrested, convicted and sentenced to prison.
[snip]
Please, feel free. But you don't need to post the whole photo lab. A
name and address will do just fine.
Hansje.
+--- Hans Derycke ---- us02...@interramp.com ----------------------------+
Ahem. Mi mi mi. Ahem hem. Laaaaaa. La la la.
MEEE TOOOOO!11!!!!
-- Ian York, in alt.folklore.urban
I Johnston
Jacques Hankin (jac...@thecroft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: This happened to a well known news presenter in the UK.
: Julia Summerville, a woman who had just gone through a fight with
: brain cancer, was taken in to the local nick (police station) with her
: partner after they had the audacity to take some photos of their young
: children in the bath, and ask them to be developed by a local
: laboratory.
Wasn't it Boots the Chemist? Who advertise their processing with a life
size stand-up cardboard cut out of a naked toddler, seen from the rear?
Ian
RC Bradley
A number of people trying to determine the BS level of the legend
of the girlfriend/boyfriend taking their film of their hacking to
K-Mart wrote stuff like:
* It couldn't be true, because otherwise *everyone* would know
about it.
* The pictures are fakes.
* No one could be that stupid (which started another
sub-thread).
This wasn't that hard to track down, folks. It occured in the
Detroit area, and they really were NOT that stupid: they did not
take the film to be developed; rather, the girl went to the
police and claimed that her boyfriend had offed her husband.
When the police arrived on the scene, they found the film
canister, had it developed, and the true story became obvious.
Further details should be available tomorrow, assuming my FBI
contact comes through with the case file.
--------------------------
R.C. Bradley
Institute of Police Technology and Management
University of North Florida
"the world's largest repository of gruesome photos"
Chris Borg
705...@news.interramp.com> <5190v9$c...@pelican.unf.edu> Distribution:
if you want to see the "kodak moment" goto www.grotesque.com
the photos are real. they have Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman Dead bloodly
photo aswell.
RC Bradley (rbra...@unf.edu) wrote:
: A number of people trying to determine the BS level of the legend
Gordy Thompson
In article <3232A3...@sonic.net>, catherine yronwode
<yron...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Keith M. Ellis <kme...@millenium.texas.net> wrote:
>> If memory serves, Bernardo/Teale and Homolka videotaped the
>> rapes, not the murders and if memory further serves, B/T isn't visible
>> in the tapes, which is why he eventually was willing to hand them over:
>> Karla was the one who was going to get hosed by the visual evidence,
>> except that she plead-bargained her way to a short sentence by fingering
>> her partner in crime.
>
> James Nicoll wrote:
>
>> Now, the Moors Murders in the 1950s might have had audio recordings
>> of the murders: does anyone remember.
>
>The Moors Murderers used audio tape.
>
>Add Charles Ng and Leonard Lake, who videotaped torture and murder
>sessions in their cabin in rural northern California.
>
Add Harvey Glatman, the Los Angeles "bondage murderer" of the
mid-1950s, who took John-Williesque photos of his victims before
strangling them and burying them in the desert. Two of his victims
were models and one supposedly had actually posed for Willie; Glatman
hired them through an agency to pose for detective magazine covers.
(No. 3, as I recall, was just some poor soul he met through a
lonely-heart's club.)
He wasn't so stupid as to have the film commercially
processed, but the cops found the negatives and prints in his
apartment after he was arrested trying to kidnap victim #4. Up to that
point they had three unconnected missing-persons reports, with no
bodies and no clues, and an unrelated ho-hum assault case. When
confronted with the pictures, Glatman confessed to everything, led the
police to the bodies and went to the gas chamber shortly thereafter.
--
Gordy Thompson Some days you're the statue,
go...@nytimes.com -=0=- some days you're the pigeon.
RC Bradley
Grinch <Ol'Na...@Seus.com> wrote:
> Can anyone debunk (or verify) the story below
[snip the rest]
Grinch goes on to tell of the legend of the girlfriend/boyfriend
who kill her husband, take photos of themselves hacking up the
body, then taking the film to K-Mart for photo processing. "No
one is *that* stupid" say some; the pictures are fakes say
others; the BS indicator is pegging the needle because no details
are provided. I will now rectify that:
On July 14, 1982 the victim Bobby is shot by James Edward Glover,
then 36, and Bobby's girlfriend (not wife) Jeannine Lynn Clark,
aka Charlie, then 21. Bobby is shot in the back of the head with
a large calibre copper jacketed bullet which lodges at the base
of his skull. They then proceed to hack up the body while taking
pictures, usually in (to them) humorous poses. The film is left
in the camera.
To make this brief, on July 17 Jeannine comes to the police
station and reports that Jimmy has killed and butchered her
boyfriend (Bobby), and that he (Jimmy) is still at Bobby's house.
The police respond, find the body, Jimmy (in the garage), AND
the camera with film inside.
The film is processed, the results analyzed, which leads to:
[read to the tune of Dragnet epilogue music]
James Edward Glover pled guilty on November 30, 1982. He is
sentenced to 30-50 years for 2nd degree murder, 2 years for
possession of a firearm during commission of a felony, and 6-10
years for mutilation of a dead human body.
Jeannine Lynn Clark was found guilty by a jury on February 2,
1983 and sentenced on Febuary 23 to 6-10 years for mutilation of
a dead human body.
Presumedly, Jeannine is out by now on these charges. Choose your
girlfriends carefully.
----------------------------------------
RC Bradley
Institute of Police Technology and Management
University of North Florida
"where homicide investigation is only one of our 50 courses"
Rudeboy
[Gordy Thompson]
> Add Harvey Glatman, the Los Angeles "bondage murderer" of the
>mid-1950s, who took John-Williesque photos of his victims before
>with the pictures, Glatman confessed to everything, led the police to
>the bodies and went to the gas chamber shortly thereafter.
Ah, those were the good ol' days....
Humbly yours,
Rudeboy
Earl Blacklock
This morning, the Edmonton Journal carried a wire story about some Russian
soldiers who died after trying to break open with a hammer a missile they had
stolen. (Apparently they were looking for precious metals that are in some,
although not in this style of missile.) I was left with two questions: What
happened to them? (The story didn't say whether they blew up, or how they
died.) And the second is: Why does this sound so much like a UL?
I wonder if a spy satellite caught their final moments?
Bill Fishman
Presumably everyone here knows the story that happened last year and was
thoroughly documented in the L.A. Times, where a couple (man and woman)
had sex with a little girl they were babysitting, took pictures of it,
left the pictures in the guy's car, the guy's car was stolen, the car
thief emptied the car in an intersection in a bad area of Los Angeles,
someone found the pictures lying on the street and took them to the
police, the police ran on TV news the parts of the pictures that could be
used to identify the people involved (don't think they were eager to do
that, do you?), people who recognized them called the TV station with the
identification, and the two adults are now in jail. The parents didn't
know anything about this until the whole thing came out in the news, as
the child was very young.
--
Mmm, dat's NICE Max!
Mike Holmans
bill...@deltanet.com (Bill Fishman) treated us to:
>Presumably everyone here knows the story that happened last year and was
>thoroughly documented in the L.A. Times,
<unpleasant but good story snipped>
No. But I've only been reading a.f.u for a year, so if it happened
before the Tim Shell/snopes impersonation battle, I didn't hear about
it.
Given that it ends with the wonderful detail about the parents of the
molested child not knowing about the incident until it came out on the
news, it's a bit surprising that this variation on the "Everybody
wants to do your kids harm so watch out" theme hasn't circulated more.
But the chain of incident is so implausible that a full cite, if
posted, ought to be a candidate for the archives.
Mike "wonder if they made the kid take roofies" Holmans
sig doesn't have a camera and will babysit for food
Marat Fayzullin
Earl Blacklock (blac...@visia.net) wrote:
: This morning, the Edmonton Journal carried a wire story about some Russian
: stolen. (Apparently they were looking for precious metals that are in some,
: although not in this style of missile.) I was left with two questions: What
: happened to them? (The story didn't say whether they blew up, or how they
: died.) And the second is: Why does this sound so much like a UL?
the electronics projects back in Russia, and there was a lot of parts
which really contained precious metals. For example, they had very
nice silver-based batteries, not to mention all that gold in the UHF
equipment.
: I wonder if a spy satellite caught their final moments?
Word 'missile' may mean anything from a huge intercontinental carrier
20 meters high to a small vehicle-mounted antitank system (the Russian
name was PTURS). If the story is true, it is most likely that they were
dismantling one of those small missiles: things like this happen from time
to time.
Marat
Tseideman
I was talking to someone recently about school spending and he said that
Connecticut spends 3 times as much per student in Bridgeport, CT as it
does anywhere else in the state. Given that CT includes Greenwich and
Fairfield, two extraordinarily affluent places full of parents able to pay
unholy property tax rates, I think this tale is a bit beyond reality.
Anybody have any answers? And yes, I'm going to call The Hartford
Courant.
Tony Seideman
Charles Wm. Dimmick
Tseideman wrote:
>
> I was talking to someone recently about school spending and he said that
> Connecticut spends 3 times as much per student in Bridgeport, CT as it
> does anywhere else in the state. Given that CT includes Greenwich and
> Fairfield, two extraordinarily affluent places full of parents able to pay
> unholy property tax rates, I think this tale is a bit beyond reality.
First thing is to clearly define what you mean. There are two main
sources
of funds for public schools in Connecticut: the State of Connecticut and
the
Town of (fill in the blank). By Connecticut State Law, the more a town
is
able to spend to educate its children, the less the State will help out.
So
of course towns such as Greenwich and New Canaan receive far less money
per
child from the State of Connecticut than does a town ("City") such as
Bridgeport which has a much smaller per-pupil tax base to draw on. The
state
probably spends three times as much per pupil in Bridgeport as it does
per
pupil in many of the other towns, but the total per-pupil expenditure,
state
plus town revenues, is probably about the same.
Charles Wm. Dimmick