Serious question: How do we know the pictures were not taken in the order 3 - 2 - 1?
Really the only thing that may indicate he took them out of suitcase is doll clothes, unless, of course, he fixed the doll before putting it in the suitcase.
Note: I of course believe they go 1-2-3, but in terms of absolute concrete proof - what proof beyond reasonable doubt is there #1 was taken first chronologically?
Any chance someone can find other photos of the famous wedding dress mannequin?
I sure can't. The only logical explanation for me is that he is returning the doll after staging minnie and tinky, if he is in fact placing the doll in the suitcase. In either case, it's blatantly obvious that this man isn't cleaning up from a bomb, he's emplacing propaganda. Add the proof of how clean the toys are, and this media hit piece is busted.
The fact that the VERY CLEAN green bag of OTHER CLEAN TOYS was place directly on top of the grimy and dusty REAL WORLD debris from the bombing.
That bag hadn't even been in place long enough to get the bottom dirty.
Did you see the WTC bomb victims at street level after the buildings collapsed?
Everything was covered in fine powder. Everything: inside purses, under coats, inside clothes and undergarments.... between sheets of paper in books inside stores in nearby streets.
And you're going to try to pretend that "toys" found in the wreckage of a building just blown up are CLEAN?
This guy COULD NOT, IN ANY WAY, have "picked up" toys from the bombing and put them into the bag..
No expert here but lots of experience with dolls :o) - he appears to be holding the doll by an arm in picture 1 and then voila! The doll has no arms.
I mean- this guy could have shown up in the bombed out ruins with his shiny new bag- and been searching for (no- not family heirlooms or family photos) shiny new toys that "survived" the blast......
just as Sharif showed up with his camera......
but proof? you want proof? talk to Rather and Mapes...