Crime Scene Photos #3 ***WARNING - GRAPHIC DISCUSSION***

Rough view of how water would drain into and away from the disposal site based on the elevations in the topographical survey (for those not familiar w/ reading them).

Bond - Awesome work!! Are you saying (by using the term "transport") that an animal moved her torso to a different area??? <shudder>

Hot Dogs said:

That still implies flowing water. I need an explanation of why the water would be moving with force. We are not even talking about smooth ground where things can slide and roll from water movement. That area has a high-relief surface with lots of tangles, roots, root masses and living foliage. All of that stuff will hold small objects (unless they are bouyant) in place even with some water movement.

This water accumulates from rain. Water "seeks its own level" and you end up with something like a big puddle. There is stays, and it begins to recede by soaking into the ground and by evaporation. But those processes don't involve water flowing laterally across the land; it's a gradual shrinkage of standing water.

IMO, the patterned scattering of bones suggests wholesale movement of body parts (prior to full skeletonization) by agents (animals and/or humans) - not natural forces.

Click to expand...

BondJamesBond said:

Rough view of how water would drain into and away from the disposal site based on the elevations in the topographical survey (for those not familiar w/ reading them).

Click to expand...

This is a very nice job, BJB. I've been reading topos since I was in grade school (my father was a geography professor) so I don't think twice about interpreting them, and tend to forget that other people may have more of a struggle.

I find your hypothesis to be very plausible. My main concern is the effects of undergrowth on transfer. I feel the same way that Hot Dogs does, that the density of the growth in the area would be a major obstacle.

It would be good if we could determine the extent of the "path" into the underbrush beyond the discovery spot. This possibly could have provided a canal of sorts to effect the distribution you propose. I haven't spent as much time reviewing the site photos as I probably should have. There may be additional info there that I've overlooked.

Another area of interest you point out is the question of just how much water was actually at the site and when. I've been thinking about this for a while, and keep letting it slide to the back of my mind. Discussions keep cropping up about when there was water, how much water there was, and where the water level was in relation to the remains.

When watching the first TV reports of the discovery I immediately noticed the total station that had been set up (because I've spent so many hours behind one). We now know that they have detailed elevation records of each piece of evidence as located.

What caught my attention is the close proximity of a storm water retention and sedimentation basin on the adjacent construction site. Google Earth scales that sed. basin at approx. 700 ft. from the remains.

I can't speak for Fl., but NC laws concerning erosion control are very stringent. Large projects are required to keep detailed records, and city and county jurisdictions and the state DENR are quite proactive about enforcement.

Along with regular (weekly) inspection of all erosion control devices (silt fencing, sed. basin outfalls, etc.) additional inspections are required after any significant rain events, Significant starts at about 1" of daily precipitation. Maybe less.

Whenever I performed these inspections I always took photos. Lots of photos. It has occurred to me that if the contractor on that project did the same thing then features in the photos could be surveyed to get a quite accurate record of water levels in that area.

Potentially it could be possible to generate a fairly exact mapping of the water levels at the remains. This would address many puzzling issues.

I wonder if LE has done this already?

fortytwo said:

It would be good if we could determine the extent of the "path" into the underbrush beyond the discovery spot. This possibly could have provided a canal of sorts to effect the distribution you propose.

Click to expand...

Any "path" may also be used by an animal(s) transporting parts.

Another area of interest you point out is the question of just how much water was actually at the site and when. I've been thinking about this for a while, and keep letting it slide to the back of my mind. Discussions keep cropping up about when there was water, how much water there was, and where the water level was in relation to the remains.

Click to expand...

FWIW, I believe that Kronk told OCSO that in August the water edge allowed a person to be only 4-10 feet away from the "round white something". If you want to assume that was the skull, it might be usable info to plot out the water situation.

There are also storm drains alongside Suburban on the remains side.
.

It's Not the Nanny said:

Bond - Awesome work!! Are you saying (by using the term "transport") that an animal moved her torso to a different area??? <shudder>

Click to expand...

Thanks, INTN - its certainly nothing compared to that grid map!

RE: What transported...I dunno. I tried to state it as neutral, such that the transport could have been by water or scavengers or both, since I don't have enough information to suggest one more than the other. It is heartwrenching to think about what we're discussing...so...subconciously, I guess I wanna believe water...just bein' honest...can't help it.

fortytwo said:

This is a very nice job, BJB. I've been reading topos since I was in grade school (my father was a geography professor) so I don't think twice about interpreting them, and tend to forget that other people may have more of a struggle.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Earned gas & college money surveying & drafting when I was a teenager...we'd get along famously

fortytwo said:

I find your hypothesis to be very plausible. My main concern is the effects of undergrowth on transfer. I feel the same way that Hot Dogs does, that the density of the growth in the area would be a major obstacle.

It would be good if we could determine the extent of the "path" into the underbrush beyond the discovery spot. This possibly could have provided a canal of sorts to effect the distribution you propose. I haven't spent as much time reviewing the site photos as I probably should have. There may be additional info there that I've overlooked..

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I don't disagree at all...I understand and agree the vegitation presents a challenge to water transport. As you suggest, the lesser degree of vegitation in "the path" would certainly have provided less resistance to movement through this area. Thinking out loud...perhaps "the path" exists in part due to the natural flow/drainage through this area???? :waitasec:

I would be willing to venture a guess that the 'swamp' area on the north side of Suburban prolly drains to the south through culverts under Suburban Drive such that the 'swampy' area that includes the crime scene area also receives hydraulic load from an even larger area...developments incl. So....not saying it presents a good argument...just something to consider...but, in addition to receiving the run-off from the surface of Suburban (down the slope of the crime scene) and the immediate run-off, the crime scene prolly has some more dynamics @ work. Any local could drive over to confirm/debunk the presence of culverts.

Almost not noteworthy, but, FWIW, that little 'knob' would also give a channeling effect on surface water run-off.

...in addition to my pre-disposition to water transport (see admission to INTN above ) I also remember wading in what appeared to be still backwater as a kid only to find a deceivingly strong current under the surface...full disclosure and all

JWG collected temperature data (in 5 minute increments) from the local area via the weather underground website in a very detailed ADD calculation exercise. The site also provides rainfall/date if one wanted to dive in and collect the data for consideration.

fortytwo said:

When watching the first TV reports of the discovery I immediately noticed the total station that had been set up (because I've spent so many hours behind one). We now know that they have detailed elevation records of each piece of evidence as located.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

*respectfully snipped for space*
Excellent observation! They now have essentially everything they need to reconstruct the water history @ the crime scene, save for the overwhelming volume it saw mid-August from Fay...that would have certainly had a more dynamic impact than a simple model might handle.

fortytwo said:

What caught my attention is the close proximity of a storm water retention and sedimentation basin on the adjacent construction site. Google Earth scales that sed. basin at approx. 700 ft. from the remains.

Whenever I performed these inspections I always took photos. Lots of photos. It has occurred to me that if the contractor on that project did the same thing then features in the photos could be surveyed to get a quite accurate record of water levels in that area.

Potentially it could be possible to generate a fairly exact mapping of the water levels at the remains. This would address many puzzling issues.

I wonder if LE has done this already?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

*also respectfully snipped for space*
Wouldn't that be a nice plum to pull outta the pie! Unfortunately, IIRC, the Google sat image we're referencing is quite dated...circa 2006, IIRC, and I don't trust my memory all that well.

...now...I should go look-up that pic I promised to look-up earlier.

My apologies to anyone that feels I may have snuffed out the "Crime Scene Photo's" topic drilling into this topography stuff. I'll grab that pic to bring this puppy back around :bang:

I am *lapping up* all the info here. Fortytwo, BJB ... I'm liking this *puppy* very much! I hope you will continue to post such maps etc. It may be over my head but it sure is a wonderful way to sharpen my intrest. Thank you, both of you, for spending time with this and allowing us to *learn - feel our way* through ::blowkiss::

BuffaloPI said:

The skull would not have been white. Bones left out in the sun in the desert end up sort of bleached white, but not bones in a florida swamp.

Click here to see a muddy skeleton(kinda graphic, btw), this will give you a better idea of the color of bones you are looking for in these crime scene photos.

Click to expand...

Thank you, BuffaloPI. It is graphic, but it actually helped settle things in my mind. The outdoors above ground skeleton is BROWN before bleaching to white. It's not black. Not even dark grey. It's brown.

suspicious1 said:

I had never heard this before either but on NG tonight they stated that the shoes were in a paper bag. I want to know if it is true or not.

Click to expand...

:blowkiss: Nancy not only said the two pair of shoes were in a paper bag, she elaborated that they were "sealed in a paper bag." We might as well give her credit for her whole bombshell!

I wanna know if it's true, too.

kgeaux said:

Thank you, BuffaloPI. It is graphic, but it actually helped settle things in my mind. The outdoors above ground skeleton is BROWN before bleaching to white. It's not black. Not even dark grey. It's brown.



:blowkiss: Nancy not only said the two pair of shoes were in a paper bag, she elaborated that they were "sealed in a paper bag." We might as well give her credit for her whole bombshell!

I wanna know if it's true, too.

Click to expand...

Shoes were collected around the time of first arrest. There were threads on most items like knives and KC's trousers etc. I suspect there is a shoe thread?

Hot Dogs said:

Any "path" may also be used by an animal(s) transporting parts.



FWIW, I believe that Kronk told OCSO that in August the water edge allowed a person to be only 4-10 feet away from the "round white something". If you want to assume that was the skull, it might be usable info to plot out the water situation.

There are also storm drains alongside Suburban on the remains side.
.

Click to expand...

As you do, I tend to lean toward the idea of animal transport. But I'm very much on the fence about it. Perhaps (probably) both mechanisms are in play. At any rate it is largely an exercise in morbid curiosity. The other alternative is human agent transport after the original disposal, and I think that is obviously not a plausible scenario.

There's been more than one statement (I think) about the distance of the remains from water's edge. The other that I recall was 4 to 6 ft. Small difference. It would be interesting to plot this against the topos, because it might provide greater insight into the POV at the time both of RK and the LE responders. I think the scene photos provide a great deal of help here, because there seems to be a tendency to visualize the site as it appeared in the recovery effort videos, and not as what could in some spots be described as "impenetrable jungle".

I'm sure there are storm drains and, perhaps more significant, transfer culverts under the road from the north as BJB suggested in the post following yours.

My interest in the surface hydraulics is largely due to a desire to resolve persistent negative discussions about RK and about the scope and quality of the search effort.

OK...as promised...

Hope this ties (1) grid map references, to (2) topography, to (3) visual of sloping...

Hot Dogs said:

Any "path" may also be used by an animal(s) transporting parts.

FWIW, I believe that Kronk told OCSO that in August the water edge allowed a person to be only 4-10 feet away from the "round white something". If you want to assume that was the skull, it might be usable info to plot out the water situation.

There are also storm drains alongside Suburban on the remains side.
.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the details, Hot Dogs.

Not trying to take a position on what Kronk saw or didn't...I don't wanna step in that ring...just FWIW...

1) Worth noting that, given the slope of "Area A" where the skull was located, 4-10' is a huuuuuuuuge range when you consider how much difference in water that would hafta be...IOW...for every inch rise in water level the lateral distance away (toward Suburban Drive where he would be standing to make this observation) from Area A doesn't increase that much...hard to explain...hope that makes sense. So, an attempt to model it prolly wouldn't yield meaningful results, IMHO.

2) After posting above I noted in the ariel views that Suburban is continuously curbed for a few hundred yards east and west of the disposal site. There is a stormwater collection drain at the western end before the curb ends. This would minimize to eliminate spillover from the surface street for most rainfall. Of course, it wouldn't affect the input from the adjacent property (corner of Suburban & Hopespring Dr.) Can't tell if the stormwater drain & curb would've handled the volume from Fay - my guess is it would've been overflowing due to the downstream pressure @ its outfall...wherever that is (IOW..."backed up").

3) Ariel views don't provide a clear view to determine if there are culverts draining under Suburban Drive (e.g. north to south) impacting the crime scene hydraulics. Any locals up for a look-see?

BondJamesBond said:

...in addition to my pre-disposition to water transport (see admission to INTN above ) I also remember wading in what appeared to be still backwater as a kid only to find a deceivingly strong current under the surface...full disclosure and all

JWG collected temperature data (in 5 minute increments) from the local area via the weather underground website in a very detailed ADD calculation exercise. The site also provides rainfall/date if one wanted to dive in and collect the data for consideration.

*respectfully snipped for space*
Excellent observation! They now have essentially everything they need to reconstruct the water history @ the crime scene, save for the overwhelming volume it saw mid-August from Fay...that would have certainly had a more dynamic impact than a simple model might handle.

*also respectfully snipped for space*
Wouldn't that be a nice plum to pull outta the pie! Unfortunately, IIRC, the Google sat image we're referencing is quite dated...circa 2006, IIRC, and I don't trust my memory all that well.

...now...I should go look-up that pic I promised to look-up earlier.

My apologies to anyone that feels I may have snuffed out the "Crime Scene Photo's" topic drilling into this topography stuff. I'll grab that pic to bring this puppy back around :bang:

Click to expand...

Rats. You would have to remind me about the Google Earth age issue. The concept remains valid though. I'll bet that there are a lot of photos out there that could provide helpful referents.

I don't think recorded rainfall totals would be sufficient or very accurate. There are too many other variables. Local topo containment, engineered drainage, soil perc., etc. come to mind. It would require records of the immediately local drainage plain.

I certainly agree about subsurface currents. Active floodwater recession can do a good job of imitating undertows and riptides at the beach. I almost lost one of my crew on one project when... but that's another story. This does lend even more weight to your suggestions.

I think this discussion is very on-topic. It would be great if we could harness the eagle eyes of our fellow sleuths for poring over these thousands of pics for site conditions. They're probably tired of kitties by now, anyway.

fortytwo said:

Rats. You would have to remind me about the Google Earth age issue. The concept remains valid though. I'll bet that there are a lot of photos out there that could provide helpful referents.

I don't think recorded rainfall totals would be sufficient or very accurate. There are too many other variables. Local topo containment, engineered drainage, soil perc., etc. come to mind. It would require records of the immediately local drainage plain.

I certainly agree about subsurface currents. Active floodwater recession can do a good job of imitating undertows and riptides at the beach. I almost lost one of my crew on one project when... but that's another story. This does lend even more weight to your suggestions.

I think this discussion is very on-topic. It would be great if we could harness the eagle eyes of our fellow sleuths for poring over these thousands of pics for site conditions. They're probably tired of kitties by now, anyway.

Click to expand...

The effects of the ebb and flow of water levels, though interesting to follow, are likely to be overriden by the effects of hurricaine (thingy). That was strong enough to move complete latino reporters several feet in an instant. high winds, localized twisters etc could lift and transport plastic, cardboard and cloth, if not whole bags of bodies over the top of terrain and underbrush?
Bring back the kitties!

fortytwo said:

Rats. You would have to remind me about the Google Earth age issue. The concept remains valid though. I'll bet that there are a lot of photos out there that could provide helpful referents.

I don't think recorded rainfall totals would be sufficient or very accurate. There are too many other variables. Local topo containment, engineered drainage, soil perc., etc. come to mind. It would require records of the immediately local drainage plain.

I certainly agree about subsurface currents. Active floodwater recession can do a good job of imitating undertows and riptides at the beach. I almost lost one of my crew on one project when... but that's another story. This does lend even more weight to your suggestions.

I think this discussion is very on-topic. It would be great if we could harness the eagle eyes of our fellow sleuths for poring over these thousands of pics for site conditions. They're probably tired of kitties by now, anyway.

Click to expand...

BTW...didn't intend to suggest using pics to recreate the drainage history was anything less than brilliant...only that there prolly wasn't a Johnny-on-the-spot inspector watchin' that retention pond w/ ready-reference photos...darn it.

...and I'm prolly bein' too between the lines about it, but, my heart is dictating that my brain let water transport trump scavenger transport...whilst my brain realizes there is no reason to give one more credence than the other. "Comfortably numb" you might say.

Hercule Poirot said:

Bring back the kitties!

Click to expand...

*snipped*
OK...that's two ref's...guess I missed somethin' 'bout "kitties". :waitasec:

BondJamesBond said:

*snipped*
OK...that's two ref's...guess I missed somethin' 'bout "kitties". :waitasec:

Click to expand...

This used to be a crime scene picture thread?

I did make passing reference to some of the things people had "found" in pictures and noted the kitten was my favourite.


Thanks for the obvious cue to bring this Kitty back!!

BondJamesBond said:

*snipped*
OK...that's two ref's...guess I missed somethin' 'bout "kitties". :waitasec:

Click to expand...

Microscopic kitties hide in blown-up photos of the crime scene...and perhaps also in blown-up photos of glittery heart stickers, although the only reliable sighting in the sticker photo so far is a saber-toothed clown holding a Kindercare sign.

Kitty better watch out for alligator.
.

Hot Dogs said:

Kitty better watch out for alligator.
.

Click to expand...

Sadly that looks like it confirms poor kiity's last moments.

Seriously why not continue the topography/water levels in a new thread?

Hercule Poirot said:

Seriously why not continue the topography/water levels in a new thread?

Click to expand...

I agree. Then I can unveil my Swamp Gas Eruption Theory. Some of the remains were blasted into a different area.