Post by Rab on Mar 5, 2006 9:05:25 GMT -5
[From a series of posts originally posted on LindyKidnap from November 15 2001 onwards.]
I've just re-read the report of Dr Bass, a forensic anthropologist who examined the remaining bones at the request of Anna in 1982. Two of the bones were found to be non-human. The rest were finger and toe bones. Only the non-human bones showed signs of animal activity, having the marks of dog teeth on them. But what I thought was most interesting was that one
bone, a right fifth metacarpal (small finger), was labelled as "Bone taken from burlap bag" whereas the rest were gathered from the surrounding ground. So, why would there be a bone in the bag? Perhaps only if the bag was used to transport an already decayed body. Which might explain why no blood was found in it but hairs were.
As I said, there are two sources for the finding of the bone IN the burlap bag (not any old bag, THE bag).
Firstly the vial referred to in the Bass report which is labelled "Bone taken from burlap bag 022". Not beside the bag, not near the bag, not some other bag but "taken from burlap bag". I suspect that 022 is probably some evidence identification tag for THE burlap bag. The other vials have such labels as "Taken from 5 bags of dirt" or "Taken from 3 baskets of leaves". This leaves little doubt in my mind that the label is referring to the burlap bag.
Secondly, and more importantly, there is the report...from Squibb Biological Labs, dated May 27th, 1932, which confirms that a bone was found IN the bag. This report is...a forensic examination of the burlap bag found at the burial site.
...as to [the] question about why only the metacarpal. Yes, this is intriguing. The bone found is not a finger bone. It's the bone which connects your right little finger to your wrist (carpus). How it could have become so separated is puzzling. A number of the other bones - found in the vicinity of the body - were also metacarpals or metatarsals.
According to the Bass report, the bone in the bag was a right fifth metacarpal (small finger, right hand). [The Squibbb] report refers to it as a "phalange corresponding to foot of infant". This may be an initial mis-identification? The Bass report does not report any of the bones as a "phalange". The only foot bones identified are three metatarsals and a calcaneus. The report does not indicate that any tissue was attached, as it did with some of the other bones. Of course, this is 50 years later so presumably some deterioration can be expected. What is interesting is that three of the bones found in the vicinity of the body were also from the right hand. So we have a bone from the same hand in the bag and the other bones from that hand (at least those that were found) in the vicinity of the body. That to me makes the likelihood of this being the result of animal activity more remote.
The report does not mention any signs of animal teeth marks on the bones, as it does with non-human bones also discovered. Now for the inference. Does the presence of the bone in the bag mean that the body was not dumped the night of the kidnapping? No. Does it tend to make that less likely? In my opinion, yes. ...there are other possible explanations, such as the body originally being dumped in the bag and an animal removing it and leaving a bone behind. But considering that only one bone was found in the bag, this is somewhat hard to believe. Surely if an animal had attacked the body whilst it was in the bag, the bag would contain some other remnants of tissue or even bloodstains. Yet only the child's hair and the bone were
found.
I've just re-read the report of Dr Bass, a forensic anthropologist who examined the remaining bones at the request of Anna in 1982. Two of the bones were found to be non-human. The rest were finger and toe bones. Only the non-human bones showed signs of animal activity, having the marks of dog teeth on them. But what I thought was most interesting was that one
bone, a right fifth metacarpal (small finger), was labelled as "Bone taken from burlap bag" whereas the rest were gathered from the surrounding ground. So, why would there be a bone in the bag? Perhaps only if the bag was used to transport an already decayed body. Which might explain why no blood was found in it but hairs were.
As I said, there are two sources for the finding of the bone IN the burlap bag (not any old bag, THE bag).
Firstly the vial referred to in the Bass report which is labelled "Bone taken from burlap bag 022". Not beside the bag, not near the bag, not some other bag but "taken from burlap bag". I suspect that 022 is probably some evidence identification tag for THE burlap bag. The other vials have such labels as "Taken from 5 bags of dirt" or "Taken from 3 baskets of leaves". This leaves little doubt in my mind that the label is referring to the burlap bag.
Secondly, and more importantly, there is the report...from Squibb Biological Labs, dated May 27th, 1932, which confirms that a bone was found IN the bag. This report is...a forensic examination of the burlap bag found at the burial site.
...as to [the] question about why only the metacarpal. Yes, this is intriguing. The bone found is not a finger bone. It's the bone which connects your right little finger to your wrist (carpus). How it could have become so separated is puzzling. A number of the other bones - found in the vicinity of the body - were also metacarpals or metatarsals.
According to the Bass report, the bone in the bag was a right fifth metacarpal (small finger, right hand). [The Squibbb] report refers to it as a "phalange corresponding to foot of infant". This may be an initial mis-identification? The Bass report does not report any of the bones as a "phalange". The only foot bones identified are three metatarsals and a calcaneus. The report does not indicate that any tissue was attached, as it did with some of the other bones. Of course, this is 50 years later so presumably some deterioration can be expected. What is interesting is that three of the bones found in the vicinity of the body were also from the right hand. So we have a bone from the same hand in the bag and the other bones from that hand (at least those that were found) in the vicinity of the body. That to me makes the likelihood of this being the result of animal activity more remote.
The report does not mention any signs of animal teeth marks on the bones, as it does with non-human bones also discovered. Now for the inference. Does the presence of the bone in the bag mean that the body was not dumped the night of the kidnapping? No. Does it tend to make that less likely? In my opinion, yes. ...there are other possible explanations, such as the body originally being dumped in the bag and an animal removing it and leaving a bone behind. But considering that only one bone was found in the bag, this is somewhat hard to believe. Surely if an animal had attacked the body whilst it was in the bag, the bag would contain some other remnants of tissue or even bloodstains. Yet only the child's hair and the bone were
found.