BigCityAccountant
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2015
- Messages
- 3,436
- Reaction score
- 247
Estimated post mortum is 1 year according to NamusToddler: Found in 2010, but dead and buried 13 years. Ish.
Peaches is reported to be light-skinned AA.
Estimated post mortum is 1 year according to NamusToddler: Found in 2010, but dead and buried 13 years. Ish.
Peaches is reported to be light-skinned AA.
Well thank you but it still doesn't make sense.
If the toddler is peaches child and the toddler died 1 year before she/he was found that would make it 2010. I had also read the toddler had been deceased for 5-6 days.
Not trying to be funny but there is no way a woman deceased in 1997 could give birth to a 3 year old in say 2007 or 2008.
something is not right in dodge.
Thank you for pointing this out. It has me really confused..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
J.Burke, ex Suffolk C.chief, has his own thread dedicated to him here which I have started to read today and just can't stop. Really good information there what was/is happening with Suffolk LE office and others involved, about cases etc.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...urke-Former-Suffolk-Co-PD-Chief-December-2015
According to Namus, the child was age 1-4 (pre-adolescent), and the post mortem interval was one year. Note, the numbers are a fair estimation.How do you know how old the toddler was and how long she was dead for?
Evidently LE did not want us to have all the information. I had a feeling Peaches was the toddlers mother and figured they passed on wrong info for their own reasons.It was reported that the toddler was between 16-36 months and someone posted on here that namus showed the child was deceased less than a year. I'm just using the high end of the range.
Didn't rhe tattoo artist say she said she was from NY?
I've thought too that maybe he kept them frozen as a trophy.Maybe the toddler was frozen immediately after being killed, and her body only placed on the Parkway a year before its discovery.
Well thank you but it still doesn't make sense.
If the toddler is peaches child and the toddler died 1 year before she/he was found that would make it 2010. I had also read the toddler had been deceased for 5-6 days.
Not trying to be funny but there is no way a woman deceased in 1997 could give birth to a 3 year old in say 2007 or 2008.
something is not right in dodge.
There could be many reasons why information could be wrong.Estimated post mortum is 1 year according to Namus
In the earliest reports of Jane Doe # 3 being a dna match for the toddler, it was simply stated that Jane was somehow related to the toddler. I often wondered how that turned into a declaration that Jane Doe # 3 was the mother of this child. If there was sufficient, non-degraded dna in both of these remains to determine that one was the mother of the other, why did LE simply say they were somehow related?
I'm wondering if bad reporting might be what is leading to all this confusion.
We know that Peaches had a scar from a cesarian section sometime prior to 1997. That would have been at least 14 years prior to the toddler's remains having been found. What happened to that child? If the initial reports that Jane Doe # 3 was simply biologically related to the toddler is the correct version, perhaps the toddler was a grandchild. Or a niece.
I would think that the best way to try to clear this confusion up is to go back and track down the initial reports.
JMO
ETA: sorry for the less than clear writing here. First sip of coffee.
This was LE effort to throw everyone off. ME did say there was something about the toddlers mom LE did not want out there. Evidently is was Peaches and the mom was one in the same.I'm so confused, so Baby Doe was killed in '97 along with peaches? Whats all this about Baby Doe supposedly only being killed a few years prior to discovery of her remains? (BTW, was Baby Doe determined a girl?)
Sorry Sleuther's! I am having a slow day so excuse my confusion!
This was LE effort to throw everyone off. ME did say there was something about the toddlers mom LE did not want out there. Evidently is was Peaches and the mom was one in the same.
Evidently LE did not want us to have all the information. I had a feeling Peaches was the toddlers mother and figured they passed on wrong info for their own reasons.