Posted on 03/09/2008 4:35:40 PM PDT by abb
A photography expert with over 30 years of experience says that a second person can be seen in the back seat of the SUV in a photo provided by police regarding the murder of UNC student Eve Carson.
William Mathis of Mathis & Jones Communications near St. Louis, Missouri initially contacted the Raleigh Chronicle newspaper to provide a color enhanced version of the ATM surveillance photos that were provided by Chapel Hill Police.
UNC student body president Eve Carson, age 22, was found murdered on Wednesday morning in Chapel Hill and police are looking for the man whose photo was taken while using her ATM card.
According to his bio, Mathis is an award-winning expert in photography with over 30 years of experience and works to enhance digital photographs for a living. He uses large format cameras, printers, and other specialized equipment to do his work which has included architectural photography for large architectural firms such as HOK, worked as an official photographer for historic site renovations, and has performed graphic arts design in the sports industry.
Mathis saw an interview with the editor of the Raleigh Chronicle about the case on MSNBC on Sunday morning and decided to help out, especially since he is originally from North Carolina.
"I have daughters at Vanderbilt and University of Maryland and this type of heinous crime has to be stopped," said Mathis. "It is the least I could do."
Mathis provided the Raleigh Chronicle two colorized versions of the original grainy black and white photos that Chapel Hill Police provided to the media on Saturday. He also improved upon the color of the "retro" Houston Astros baseball cap that the suspect appears to be wearing.
However, while working on the photos, Mathis noticed something else in the background, which he did not notice until he started examining the photos closely.
"It also looks like there is a very large person in the backseat," said Mathis, who said he noticed the figure when he printed out a very large copy of the photo.
Mathis has large format printers that can print copies of pictures several feet across, to the point of being life-sized.
"When I blew them up, I noticed...hey, there's another person back there," said Mathis.
Mathis said an outline of a shoulder can be seen in the back seat and although no face can be seen, he feels that after reviewing the photo that another person is in the vehicle.
"[The figure] is a very big man," said Mathis.
Mathis said he believes the second person in the back seat is also wearing a baseball cap.
Indeed, looking at the original black and white photographs provided by police (see below), a very dark outline against the light-colored leather seats of the SUV in the back can be seen. The outline blocks all light and does not seem to be a shadow.
The outline seems to be in the shape of a person, although that is certainly not confirmed by Chapel Hill Police at this time. It could be something else that simply appears to be a person in the photographs.
Mathis said it would be better to work with a higher resolution version of the photo than the one handed out to the media.
Chapel Hill Police have not mentioned a second person in their discussions of the case, but the Raleigh Chronicle will notify police of the photo expert's opinion.
The official spokesman for the Chapel Hill Police Department, Lt. Kevin Gunter, was not immediately available for comment in the case. Two messages were left with the police department on Sunday afternoon including one with the staff duty officer at the front desk.
The same reason that when I stopped at an intersection to let some black teenagers cross in front of my truck, two boys tried to bash in my drivers window and when it didn’t break, grabbed a square nose shovel out of the back of the truck and put a 6” long slice in the cab trying to break the window in and then ran.
Or perhaps the time in high school when I was walking along a street near the UC Berkeley campus and a black guy walked by and knocked me unconscious with a pipe across the bridge of my nose and then ran.
No evidence has been doctored.
Your friend will ride the gurney in any case however.
that would not be very “street wise” would it
There are other things ~ her credit card, panties, etc. ~ stuff that a remarkably stupid thug who doesn't know ATMs have cameras would steal.
There’s no phoney evidence to throw out. The B&W photo is sufficient to ID the guy (once he’s caught). The enhanced material is being used to help YOU ID the guy so the cops can catch him when you call in his location.
One would expect that "streetwise" thugs would at least know a thing or two about the 9mms that are such an important status symbol and prized possession on the streets.
But "gangstas" kill themselves relatively frequently while horsing around with firearms because the well-known fact that dropping the clip does not eject the chambered round is apparently not a particularly well-known fact in the 'hood.
The colorizing makes it easier for the eyes to distinguish and thus easier for people to identify the person and their clothing since it’s more realistic, and more color also enables more enhancement since you have more information to work with.
“MS Photoeditor” isn’t going to give you much of an idea of how images can be enhanced to bring out details.
The H stands out because it’s high contrast and white vs the colored star and cap. Dodging highlights (a photographic tool to brighten the lightest points) would sharply bring out the H, while you’d have to be more careful with the star and cap since the tones are closer.
However, simply changing the contrast gives you some of the element. Courts have been accepting such things for many years. Remember, this is a digital picture to start with, not an analog B&W piece of film. That means that the "print" you are looking at in the first picture is not the "real" picture anyway ~ it's just one of an infinite variety of pictures possible with analysis of the pictels. BTW, even in that infinitude the perp is still identifiable, not some other guy!
So you take a B/W photo, colorize it, and suddenly you have more information to work with? The "information" you have created is the colorization and is artificial. Yes, it may be helpful to get a witness to remember something he saw or recognize someone he knows, but if you have to use "colorization" of a B/W photo to enable "enhancement", you are trying to create facts from fiction.
muawiyah is absolutely correct ... there is no need to introduce a colorized version at a trial of the perp. You can't throw out evidence that is never introduced in the first place.
It sure was.
He had super Freeper vision to pick that up in the grainy black and white shot.
“The same reason that when I stopped at an intersection to let some black teenagers cross in front of my truck, two boys tried to bash in my drivers window and when it didn’t break, grabbed a square nose shovel out of the back of the truck and put a 6” long slice in the cab trying to break the window in and then ran.
Or perhaps the time in high school when I was walking along a street near the UC Berkeley campus and a black guy walked by and knocked me unconscious with a pipe across the bridge of my nose and then ran.”
I see. So because of this every attack by a black person on white is race inspired or at least that’s the most likely reason?
The only time I’ve ever been attacked for no apparent reason was by a white person. I guess he just hated white people.
Got a link to it?
Since we don't need to know about it once the perp is ID'd, it's existence is irrelevant.
The jury will need to know about it unless you want him to get off.
Your post at 41. That’s the “first photo” I was referring to. It’s B&W, and you called it “original”.
That's more or less my point.
The guy who did the enhancements worked with both B/W and colorized versions. He did it to help out. Why you keep bringing up the stuff about the enhanced photos at trial is beyond me. The cops have the original ATM photos which clearly show his face.
And for the sake of argument, why would someone add an "H" to the hat?
Your 141: I thought you were referring to the “original” photo that was released to the press, which I don’t have a link to. Mine was from an Atlanta TV station’s website and I thought you were challenging that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.