Shannan Gilbert Found, death declared an accident. What do you think?

[the quiet girl]

oh don't forget Law & Order SVU is doing there version of SG disappearance tonight 10pm est.
In case you are interested in how they play this out.

 

[Claudette]

<modsnip>

Also, re: the woman calling about her husband, I can't help but think that it's a woman trying to get her husband into trouble out of spite or something.MOO of course.

 

[MrsPC]

Gilbert's mom posted on their site again today:

The medical examiner has still not released Shannan to us OR a cause of death! It's been 2 1/2 months! Please pray we get her soon so we can give her a proper burial and that we get some answers. Thank you all.

 

[Pinkhammer]

Gilbert's mom posted on their site again today:

The medical examiner has still not released Shannan to us OR a cause of death! It's been 2 1/2 months! Please pray we get her soon so we can give her a proper burial and that we get some answers. Thank you all.

I don't understand why they cannot release Shannan's remains for burial. It is so cruel to make the family wait so long to put her to rest.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Just a suggestion...if you take issue with something another poster posts, click on the alert button on that post and take your issue up with a moderator. Discussing those issues here only derails the thread.

JMO

 

[Salem]

What Mt. Kat said.

It's all semantics and this forum is not about semantics - it is about the LISK, and this thread is specifically about Shannan Gilbert - so let's get back on topic here, okay.

Salem

 

[Dwntwnslim]

I posted this link in another thread but, thought I should post it here too:

The Huffington Post
Long Island Serial Killer Is Seasonal
Visitor, Expert Scott Bonn Contends
David Lohr
02/21/12
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/serial-killer-expert-dr-scott-bonn_n_1290683.html

"Bonn also believes Gilbert is likely linked to the other victims."

"[Authorities] seem to dismiss Gilbert as one of the victims, and that does not make sense to me," Bonn said. "Unless there is evidence we don't know about, it seems too eerily similar to dismiss."

 

[Tugela]

Sounds to me he is making connections that don't make sense.

"It's not uncommon for prostitutes to take a child along. There's no prostitute daycare I am aware of," Bonn explained. In regard to the male victim's remains, Bonn said, "This person was cross-dressed. Think about it. Let's say the serial killer picked up this [individual], not knowing this was a man. When he found out, he bashed the victim's head in, which is contrary to how the other victims were killed, which appears to be strangulation."

I have never heard of prostitutes taking kids along with them. I'm pretty sure that would freak their customers out. I don't doubt that it might have happened once or twice before, but describing it as "not uncommon" tells me this guy doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

Also, the most likely way the killer operates is to arrange to meet these women at a neutral location, and then drive them to a final destinaton where he kills them. The purpose of that would be to avoid detection, if he called them directly to his home he would risk being found out pretty quickly. Under those circumstances there is no way a kid would be brought along. I think the woman and the child are far more likely the victims of a homicidal boyfriend than the serial killer. Their bodies are in the general location by coincidence and are unrelated to the greater case.

Also, the crossdresser argument doesnt make sense to me. If this guy is a serial killer, he would be following a ritual and looking for a specific type of woman. A crossdresser would not be part of that ritual, especially since the cause of death was different. It is far more likely that the body was dumped there coincidently, just because it was a remote location.

"[Authorities] seem to dismiss Gilbert as one of the victims, and that does not make sense to me," Bonn said. "Unless there is evidence we don't know about, it seems too eerily similar to dismiss."

I dont know what he thinks is "eerily similar". The only commonality is the location as far as I can tell, everything else is different.

 

[Aleph]

I have never heard of prostitutes taking kids along with them. I'm pretty sure that would freak their customers out. I don't doubt that it might have happened once or twice before, but describing it as "not uncommon" tells me this guy doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

I know it sounds appalling, but it doesn't seem to be that uncommon. The only acquaintance of mine who has been a prostitute brought her baby with her on jobs. I don't claim to know the thinking behind it. Maybe in the moment it seems like the easiest thing to do rather than call someone and try to explain why you need a babysitter at 11pm. Maybe women think that having a baby along will deter violence -- some bad people might hurt a prostitute, but not a child.

 

[the quiet girl]

x
nevermind it was off topic
back to Shannan!

 

[the quiet girl]

Here is something, one of many things that I take notice of and file in the back of my head.
There is a cleaning company listed and its address is inside of Oak Beach at the end of Hawser Dr. I first noticed it listed when I was figuring out the footage of SG remains the other week. Its actually very close, does it mean anything, probably not. Just one of the things, thought I would mention it thou.
This can be deleted if it needs to be.

 

[Tugela]

I know it sounds appalling, but it doesn't seem to be that uncommon. The only acquaintance of mine who has been a prostitute brought her baby with her on jobs. I don't claim to know the thinking behind it. Maybe in the moment it seems like the easiest thing to do rather than call someone and try to explain why you need a babysitter at 11pm. Maybe women think that having a baby along will deter violence -- some bad people might hurt a prostitute, but not a child.

No, it is uncommon. Just go and read the escort review boards, the clients of these women would definitely be freaked out by that - in general they don't want anyone other than themselves and the escort around, especially not anything resembling a pimp or a family member (another escort is ok). If the escort brought her kid along they would mention that in the reviews for sure, because it would be seen as a huge red flag and exposure to risk.

If you doubt me, go to one of these boards and ask - I'm pretty sure that the posters there would be mostly horrified by the idea.

 

[truthspider]

No, it is uncommon. Just go and read the escort review boards, the clients of these women would definitely be freaked out by that - in general they don't want anyone other than themselves and the escort around, especially not anything resembling a pimp or a family member (another escort is ok). If the escort brought her kid along they would mention that in the reviews for sure, because it would be seen as a huge red flag and exposure to risk.

If you doubt me, go to one of these boards and ask - I'm pretty sure that the posters there would be mostly horrified by the idea.

I agree that it is uncommon, it tells us something about the perp and his con. Streetwalkers don't bring babys with them, so what year was this victim again? And we are expected to believe she was just another prostitute? She wasn't getting in a car near port authority and bringing her baby, she wasn't a craigslist girl bringing her baby on an outcall, she was someone in need and he was likely pretending to be someone who was going to help. If she was an escort who brought her baby she would needed to have her own car, but that would have led to the victims car laying around causing trouble for the perp. For a man to be picking up a woman and her child, there would likely be another story other than sex for hire. "Halfway house", "patient advocate", "never home always out helping someone", these are the phrases we will hear again and again.

 

[the quiet girl]

Maybe just maybe she was not a prostitute? What do we know about the women?

 

[Seaslug44]

Maybe just maybe she was not a prostitute? What do we know about the women?

My gut feeling tells me that she was not a prostitute and that they were murdered by her ex-husband/father of the child (or soon-to-be ex).

What if the mother and child were never reported missing?

 

[truthspider]

My gut feeling tells me that she was not a prostitute and that they were murdered by her ex-husband/father of the child (or soon-to-be ex).

What if the mother and child were never reported missing?

except that she was discarded in the wildlife sanctuary with jane doe 9098 but her child was east of gilgo with the manorville victims, this makes them victims of the sk.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...464323262376358.0004a24253ae4f383c01d&t=h&z=9

 

[Tugela]

except that she was discarded in the wildlife sanctuary with jane doe 9098 but her child was east of gilgo with the manorville victims, this makes them victims of the sk.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...464323262376358.0004a24253ae4f383c01d&t=h&z=9

Or more likely the bodies where dumped in an area considered locally as accessible but "remote" with little chance of the bodies being found by random hikers.

 

[Dwntwnslim]

The information I found about the child indicates that she was not related to Jane Doe #6 (referred to in this forum as Jane Doe 2000). There is a link within the link below to a story about her:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7639413&postcount=46"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Child Victim[/ame]

 

[truthspider]

The information I found about the child indicates that she was not related to Jane Doe #6 (referred to in this forum as Jane Doe 2000). There is a link within the link below to a story about her:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Child Victim

The child is genetically related to JD #10, whose remains were the furthest west of all the remains, east of zachs bay, and just inside the utility road that takes you into the JFK Wildlife Sanctuary. I have recently explored this utility road and appended some pictures.

The fact that this woman's "child" was miles away from her yet extremely close to JD #6 (Manorville) is important because it ties the 2 victims found in the JFK Wildlife Sanctuary to the Manorville case.

 

[truthspider]

The child is genetically related to JD #10, whose remains were the furthest west of all the remains, east of zachs bay, and just inside the utility road that takes you into the JFK Wildlife Sanctuary. I have recently explored this utility road and appended some pictures.

The fact that this woman's "child" was miles away from her yet extremely close to JD #6 (Manorville) is important because it ties the 2 victims found in the JFK Wildlife Sanctuary to the Manorville case.

I circled the western entrance to the utility road in the attached image.

The fact that the killer had killed and dismembered in Manorville (presumably because he left the larger torso there), but buried the head hands and 1 leg in this location off this utility road tells us that he did his dirty work out east, but knew the area off of ocean parkway better, and felt more comfortable taking the time to burying something here. Also because he knows that the beach is park territory and will never be developed hence found. I conclude that he had reasons to be out east, work etc, may have even had an apartment or office out there where he could do his dirty work, dump the larger torso in the woods, then drive home to jones island where he knows he has the time and ease to dig and bury the identifiable parts.

So now the question is, did he actually know this woman and could she be connected to him so he had to dismember to prevent identification? Or is she a random prostitute whose identity couldn't be connected to him and he dismembers for psychological reasons and tells himself he is doing it to be smart by making identification more difficult?