The item was most likely the original flimsy cover for Mike Brown’s body after it was removed and bagged. Placed on the ground away from the body as the larger covering was put into place. Makes sense.
Picture of Mike Brown body from Piaget Crenshaw video screenshot:
Picture of Mike Brown body from unknown video screenshot (several minutes later):
Here’s the video containing both:
If you use basic geometry, which requires the same reference points visible in both pictures, you are able to adjust the images to match perspectives. This is what I come up with.
Notice that Piaget’s image would be taken from approximately 15′ higher as her apartment balcony was on the 3rd floor and approximately 15′ further west.
Piaget Crenshaw Image:
Image from lower tenant reconciled for perspective:
Putting the two shots side-by-side you can see the cone appears later, and the article next to the cone appears later after Piaget’s footage was taken. If the article was present when Piaget took the picture it would have been in her screen view as captured:
Piaget image on left – unknown witness footage on right
So long as Piaget’s video has not been photoshopped or altered, whatever that white article is, was not present when Piaget took her image. It would definitely have been captured.
The black line on the right image represents the left side margin parameter of Piaget’s image. Using the three points of similarity between the two images:
- The sidewalk crack (to the west – or lower right)
- The curvature of the grass and three distinct weeds
- The damp crack in the roadway leading to the gutter.
These three points allow triangulation, and permit a similarity. To be safe and, to create a margin of irrefutability, I gave a 5° conservative lean trying to remove the *white item* /and or cone – it simply doesn’t remove it.
Conclusion: The item – as it appears in the later photography – was not there when Piaget took her image.