Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2008 12:36:47 GMT -5
Placed in the Archives by Admin For PZB63
[Originally Created on 04-23-08]
The site where the baby was found, and the question of how long the body was there is certainly interesting.
I can't agree that the body was removed from the bag and the bag then used as a marker. They must have both been decomposing together for at least some period of time, as the Squibb report states that amongst the five bags of soil dug to 14" at the site of the body the following were found:
To me this indicates the bag was with the body at least as long it takes for this disintegration to occur.
Also, on both the childs undergarments there were fibres from the burlap bag, two of them actually being on the inside of the inner garment, which I also find quite interesting.
There was no sign of blood in the soil or on the leaves or bag. There were signs of putrefication, decomposition and maggots in the 3 bags of leaves and soil. This takes time.
Bones found were embedded in soil, hair was found matted with decomposing leaves. This takes time.
So what does this mean? Well to me it seems the body was transferred to the site after an unknown period of time. The body and the bag were there long enough for disintegration of the bag and clothes to begin.
At some point body and bag were separated - I can only think of two ways, either by animals or a human.
If it was animals, esp dogs, that may explain the dirt kicked up around the body.
If it was a person, well just maybe they discovered it to their horror and did not want to become involved, or some such?
I know very little about Schippel, but he sounds a bit nutty - say he found it and that's why he said the baby was dead? I presume that while he seemed a prime suspect and was questioned, there was a reason the police discounted his involvement, but I would love to know more.
I have no idea how the bag came to be so far from the body.
I for one so far remain unconvinced that body was meant to be discovered. If it was me, I wouldn't want to be discovered with the dead baby. I tend to think that the discovery was coincidence or good fortune and probably even irrelevant to the dumper.
I do find the bag intriguing in that its recent uses seem to have been for oats and coal - to this city girl seems more for rural use than NY, and so I continue to wonder about a local connection.
Contact: lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&user=pzb63
[Originally Created on 04-23-08]
The site where the baby was found, and the question of how long the body was there is certainly interesting.
I can't agree that the body was removed from the bag and the bag then used as a marker. They must have both been decomposing together for at least some period of time, as the Squibb report states that amongst the five bags of soil dug to 14" at the site of the body the following were found:
a small mat of fibre corresponding to the burlap bag with small rootlets growing through it, and two small pieces of the baby's underclothes.
To me this indicates the bag was with the body at least as long it takes for this disintegration to occur.
Also, on both the childs undergarments there were fibres from the burlap bag, two of them actually being on the inside of the inner garment, which I also find quite interesting.
There was no sign of blood in the soil or on the leaves or bag. There were signs of putrefication, decomposition and maggots in the 3 bags of leaves and soil. This takes time.
Bones found were embedded in soil, hair was found matted with decomposing leaves. This takes time.
So what does this mean? Well to me it seems the body was transferred to the site after an unknown period of time. The body and the bag were there long enough for disintegration of the bag and clothes to begin.
At some point body and bag were separated - I can only think of two ways, either by animals or a human.
If it was animals, esp dogs, that may explain the dirt kicked up around the body.
If it was a person, well just maybe they discovered it to their horror and did not want to become involved, or some such?
I know very little about Schippel, but he sounds a bit nutty - say he found it and that's why he said the baby was dead? I presume that while he seemed a prime suspect and was questioned, there was a reason the police discounted his involvement, but I would love to know more.
I have no idea how the bag came to be so far from the body.
I for one so far remain unconvinced that body was meant to be discovered. If it was me, I wouldn't want to be discovered with the dead baby. I tend to think that the discovery was coincidence or good fortune and probably even irrelevant to the dumper.
I do find the bag intriguing in that its recent uses seem to have been for oats and coal - to this city girl seems more for rural use than NY, and so I continue to wonder about a local connection.
Contact: lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&user=pzb63