Aeronomy
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Messages
- 1,187
- Reaction score
- 43
When they say Skeletal Findings: Possible term or near-term pregnancy, I don't think they meant that the Jane Doe was pregnant at the time of her death. I think they are saying that she had carried a pregnancy to full-term some time prior to her death.
Thanks Carl!
That actually causes me to wonder a bit more about it being Rachel, though. Since NamUs states "possible" term or near term pregnancy due to the skeletal findings, I wonder if the doubt was due to what was there or what wasn't there as far as bone formation goes. Since a pregnant female experiences new bone growth beginning in the early stages of pregnancy and knowing that reproductive adolescent females are oftentimes still experiencing their own adolescent bone growth, I wonder if it could lead to uncertainty as far as the remains being someone who'd had a child. I guess I'm just wondering what factor played into the uncertainty.
Since she was in her first trimester in January and whoever this was had been dead for several months, I don't think they are the same person.
Unfortunately, I've seen differing reports on how far along Rachel was in her pregnancy when she went missing. I've seen first trimester and both 5 and 6 months in reports and from some of the old news articles in Kansas. But echoing on what I'd mentioned to Carl, I wonder if being in her first trimester would cause her own early pregnancy bone growth, and at the same time be too early for fetal bone growth since that doesn't typically happen until the beginning of the second trimester.
In case of any confusion and just for clarification, estimated postmortem interval is stated as months, not several months. Rachel was reported missing just over three months prior to the time these remains were found.
Aeronomy, have you submitted Rachel?
I didn't want to submit her before seeing if there were any feedback here first and decided to give it a day or two. I will submit her now. Thanks.