That thought crossed my mind for a second or two right after we heard about the discovery of the remains. Here are two reasons why I disount the theory:
- A murder victim's body can hold a wealth of evidence. It was said clothing was found with the body, and clothing can be another good source of evidence. Because of that, it's a rare killer who wants a victim's body to be found ("statement" killers notwithstanding). Far better to dispose of the body where it won't be associated with any known parties, making it difficult to identify in the event it is discovered.
- The forensic anthropologists will determine how long the body was at the discovery site and at what post mortem period it was placed there. If the body was moved from a prior location, it's possible the remains will hold clues leading to identification of the initial site and ultimately the killer.
Therefore, IMVHO, if this was a plan to frame SA, it was a foolish one.
Not necessarily. If the killer was a stranger that would be so, but if they were not (ie known to the victim) then finding trace evidence of them associated with the body would not be unusual or unexpected.
As you say, killers generally dispose of bodies in ways to mimimize association with them (the exception frequently being close family members, who sometimes might want to keep the body somewhere close to where they live or work, basicly to be close to them).
That is why I think it unlikely that, if the body is HD, SA would dispose of it there if he were the one responsible. That would require him to behave in a way unlike most other killers. He neither lived nor worked there, but placing the body at that location could only focus attention on him since that is where he said he was on that day.
The area the body was found it seems to me to be a place where discovery was likely sooner or later, so it seems very peculiar that a local such as him would have chosen that spot. That might well be the reason for putting it there, it would eventually be found, but not so soon that there would be too much evidence left. But the question is, who would do that? They would need to have some knowledge of Big Spring itself, it is not like they could just drive up and bury it there without the risk of immediate discovery if they didnt know the area. I would guess someone who had grown up in the general Big Spring/CC/Snyder area. Probably half the people in town, so that doesnt help us really.
Actually, with all the searchers running around that area at the time, someone reburying the body might not attract that much attention since a casual observer might assume that it was just another searcher looking through the dirt. At that point they would not have been expecting someone to be doing a burial. The search efforts themselves would have been an effective cover IMO.
If the body does turn out to be HD, I think that any clothing, jewelry or other items burried alongside will be telling. Are there shoes for example, and if not, where are they?
I don't think that they would be able to tell exactly how long it had been there, outside of plus/minus a few months. If there had been a reburial they should be able to tell that though (I would think). The work history of that particular piece of ground would establish some hard limits timewise. It sounds like the body is heavily damaged and in pieces, if todays reports are anything to go by. That might indicate dismemberment, or it may indicate tool damage from being moved or buried.
lease:
