LESS THAN MEETS THE PUBLIC EYE: Part 1


Take a look at the link picture below and tell me if that looks like "an empty lot next to an abandoned building in a rundown part of town." If you think it does then perhaps you should go to work as a photographer - because that's how the US photographer described that location, which is where he took the first set of pictures of Kristen on July 17.


http://twitpic.com/ai4wxh/full


The buildimg with the red tiled roof is immediately adjacent to the LA offices of MJZ Productions, an intertnational commercial and video production company that lists Rupert Sanders among the directors on its roster, and where as a roster talent he would have office and editing bay privledges. It is at 2201 Carmelita Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90064

http://www.mjz.com/#loaded

The picture shows the back view of both MJZ and the adjavent building. The "empty lot" is the gated parking behind the adjacent buidling and is located at 2272 S. Centinela Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90064. As you can see from the photo, that is where Kristen's car was parked.

That area is West Hollywood - hardly a rundown section. And I can guarantee you that the photographer knew EXACTLY where he was - especially since the set up of the location( an open lot surrouded by walls and nothing to conceal him from his subjects) strongly points to him having already been there before Kristen was. As does the fact that despite the having claimed to have been following Kristen from the moment she left the gym, we've never seen any pictures of earlier in the day. Why would he have not taken them the moment he saw her - after all he wouldn't have known he had a big payday coming, would he? But that's not the biggest question about this.


The real issue here is:

Why misrepresent the location that way?

Was the seedier description used because it made the encounter seem more salacious and the photos less like a set-up? Saying that she “waited for him in an empty lot in a rundown part of town" certainly paint a more lurid picture than saying "she picked him up at his office," doesn’t it?.

Which raises the question - what else has been grossly exaggerated from the account of that day?

Stay tuned for Part 2.

Authors disclaimer: This is not an attempt to defend Kristen's actions - that's not my intention nor responsibility. After all, she's already owned up to her transgression. This is an effort to point out that how this event may have been both less and more than it was.
That is, less in terms of how those pictures were obtained - a happy accident of timing versus a planned surveillance
And more in terms of the encounter itself.

Reply · Report Post