TX - Rachel New charged in deaths of three newborns, Rendon, 23 Aug 2009

[Angel Who Cares]

I'm not to sure it is the Brother and Sister. All the articles state that they have lived there for 3 years. This would mean they were living there when the 1st baby was found. I'm sure that LE would have ruled them out then. I haven't seen it written but I'm sure that they tried to identify the baby at that point. Took DNA from Brother/Sister/Landlord's son, did interviews, looked up previous renters - all this should have been done already.

It will be very interesting to learn how long they have been under the trailer. What a distrubing story...........so many questions, so little information.

Thrs0806 Nope the brother & sister WERE living there when the 1st baby was found April 9, 2008. They lived there for 3 yrs & it is only now 2009. They just recently moved out & that is way the landlords son was cleaning the property up.

A landlord’s efforts to clean out a mobile home that had recently been vacated by a brother and sister led to the discovery of the remains of two infants in containers under the porch Sunday afternoon, officials said Monday.

The sister, 36, and brother, 29, were interviewed Monday. They had been living at the residence for three years, sometimes with others, Simonds said. The pair had been interviewed in March 2008 after the first remains were found, but they denied knowledge of those as well.

http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1556410.html?storylink=omni_popular

:angel:

 

[Noway]

Wow ... I don't know what to think on this one. I think I'll wait to see if they can tell how old the bones are. That will narrow the pool of suspects somewhat.

AWC, thank you for posting this.

 

[Brassband]

From the article that AWC's~ link posted in her post # 38
Investigators are hitting a road block with past tenants, Grisham said, because the Southerns did not keep formal records of who was living on their property. None of the tenants signed leases, he said, and just paid the Southerns a month at a time.

I think that's weird. Landlords are supposed to report income earned or lost from rentals on their income taxes. There is always the possibility of being audited by the IRS and you would really want to have your records straight. Something just doesn't feel right here.:shakehead:

 

[raeann]

I think that's weird. Landlords are supposed to report income earned or lost from rentals on their income taxes. There is always the possibility of being audited by the IRS and you would really want to have your records straight. Something just doesn't feel right here.:shakehead:

Hopefully, even if the landlord doesn't have complete records, the post office may have a computer archive with past residents who used that address. Possibly even other government agencies such as SRS, SSI, driver's license records, tax filings etc. could even be searched using that address. OK---where are our great sleuther's who search for people by using addresses? THEY could find out for us, for sure.

 

[yanknrebel]

Looks like there will be DNA test all around. They need to test the landlord too. How odd that he should find all three.

I was thinking the same thing. WHat are the chances this man has found not one but THREE babies, at different times. SOmething fishy with this guy. How convieninet that HE was the one to find all three. No way do I think he had nothing to do with it.

 

[Blackwatch]

I'm not sure the brother and sister would have had time in 3 years to produce 3 babies and throw them away. I do understand it is possible, but in my opinion, the odds are against it unless they were uncommonly fertile.

 

[teedie2]

Article said that the landlord found the first infant in 2008. When the home was vacated by by the brother and sister, the landlord's son was cleaning the property and he found the babies under the rental. When we owned rental property, we checked it out pretty thoroughly before putting it up for rental again. Also, if a baby's body had already been found on my rental property, I would be checking very carefully after tenants vacated. Or, to tell the truth, if that were the case, I'd make my DH look!

I don't see anything suspicious about the landlord and his son checking out the property, they own it and it's their responsibility. It's likely they would need to do maintenance and repairs, but, who could expect something like they found!

Is the trailer in question the one nearest the water?

Hope LE gets to the bottom of this now. I wonder if they are going to search other areas in the trailer park?

 

[January.]

Wow, that contains a lot new information. So the first baby found last year was a male fetus? Also officers found one of the babies. I'm even more suspicious of the brother and sister now. If both of the babies were in different stages of decomposition, that must mean that they're not both completely skeletonized. That tells me that at least one of the babies was put there a lot more recently than 3 years ago. Big red arrow to the sister and/or brother IMO

 

[Angel Who Cares]

I'm not sure the brother and sister would have had time in 3 years to produce 3 babies and throw them away. I do understand it is possible, but in my opinion, the odds are against it unless they were uncommonly fertile.

I have to disagree with you...my mom had all 7 of her children within 10 yrs. So if you do the math she was pregnant almost the whole 10 yrs before having my youngest sibling. No twins either! :wink:

So it is very possible to be pregnant 3 times within 3 yrs. The corner has said all 3 babies were found were decomposed at earlier & later stages.

To clarify again the landlord found the 1st baby in a suitcase on April 9, 2008 & the landlords SON found the other 2 infant skeletons. Yes they are related, but after watching the video of the landlords son talking about what he found, I don't suspect either one of them. If it was one of them why would they both call LE in the first place. JMHO

Either way this is horriable that 3 little angels never had the chance to grow up & be loved by anyone. They are loved now in heaven may they find peace & comfort in God's arms now. I just hope that the community comes together & gives these little ones a proper burial now.

:angel:

 

[mysteriew]

I was thinking the same thing. WHat are the chances this man has found not one but THREE babies, at different times. SOmething fishy with this guy. How convieninet that HE was the one to find all three. No way do I think he had nothing to do with it.

Actually I can see why the landlord or his son might be the ones who would find them. It would be the landlord who would be doing some of the outside maintainence. Some mowing, cutting brush etc. So yes, I can see him finding the suitcase. Also, when people move out, the landlord is the one who has to go in to clean up. And you can find all kinds of things in a rental. Checking under the trailer could be to look to see if they used it as a trash dump. (Some people who rent won't pay for garbage pickup, instead they leave it for the landlord to pick up. They may hide it in sheds, under trailers and so forth) I do wonder how often they came in and cleared brush, because that would show how long the baby in the suitcase might have been there. Also is that a pond or a creek, and did it ever flood? Could a dog have gotten hold of the suitcase and dragged it and tried to open it? Cause that suitcase could have started out under the porch.

Yet, I wouldn't rule him out just because he called LE. Let's say a person *not necessarily this one.... found remains in their home. They know it had to be from someone in their home. They don't want that person to get in trouble, they just want to get the remains out the house and buried. Where better to put them than at the transient mobile home park that they happen to own nearby?

3 sets of remains, means that someone was around for at least 3 or more years. Or they could have brought one or more sets with them (in some cases they move the remains with them.) They lived near enough or were around enough to know when would be the best time to put the remains under the trailer. This isn't like an open neighborhood where cars drive through regularly. This seems to be an area where it is off the mainroad and would only have traffic from persons who were living or visiting there. They either weren't seen or were persons who it wouldn't be suspicious if they were seen there.

If the remains were from the bro and/or sis, and if the suitcase started out under the porch, the finding of the suitcase could have made them afraid to be caught retreiving the remaining remains to move them again. So when they moved again, they left the two that remained.

 

[impatientredhead]

Wow, that contains a lot new information. So the first baby found last year was a male fetus? Also officers found one of the babies. I'm even more suspicious of the brother and sister now. If both of the babies were in different stages of decomposition, that must mean that they're not both completely skeletonized. That tells me that at least one of the babies was put there a lot more recently than 3 years ago. Big red arrow to the sister and/or brother IMO

Newborns that have never nursed are prone to mummification due to the lack of bacteria in their digestive tract. They may be several years old and not skeletonized.

 

[Angel Who Cares]

ME Studying Infant Remains
Story Created: Aug 24, 2009 at 2:07 PM CDT
<snipped>
North Texas authorities are investigating how the skeletal remains of what appears to be multiple infants ended up at a mobile home park.

Tarrant County Sheriff's Department spokesman Terry Grisham told Dallas-Fort Worth television station KTVT that the medical examiner and forensic anthropologists are studying the remains found Sunday.

Grisham said authorities are not sure if a crime was committed.

Neighbors told the television station that the landowner's relative found the bones in a garbage bag among items left by a tenant who had moved out.

Article:
http://www.kiiitv.com/news/txstatenews/54578362.html

:angel:

 

[January.]

Newborns that have never nursed are prone to mummification due to the lack of bacteria in their digestive tract. They may be several years old and not skeletonized.

Wow, that's really interesting, I never knew that. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Shutterfly]

Looks like the primary difference in the method of disposal was the suitcase but because the kudzu is so thick, it would still be concealed as the others were. Maybe whoever is responsible for dumping the three infants already had the first one in a suitcase when they moved to the trailer?

 

[raine1212]

Good Morning Sleuthers. I have taken a long break away.. But I am back.
I am going out on a limb here. How do we really know that this is a true brother and sister. If so maybe runaways from a long time ago, incest maybe, something does not seem right with me on the the brother and sister. Could this be a kidnapping maybe the man or woman being the one kidnapped. I know I need more coffee. But these are things that started running through my head

 

[SailorMoon]

And not to be too gross, but I keep thinking smell??? Wouldn't they smell at first, or for a while?? Although, here in the Texas heat, maybe not. A puppy/dog was hit and was dead along the road on my way into town a few days ago. It only took 2 days before it was nothing at all.

And why not dispose of them in the river?????? Weird...weird/evil people out there. Way too many of them.

 

[jnTexas]

Good Morning Sleuthers. I have taken a long break away.. But I am back.
I am going out on a limb here. How do we really know that this is a true brother and sister. If so maybe runaways from a long time ago, incest maybe, something does not seem right with me on the the brother and sister. Could this be a kidnapping maybe the man or woman being the one kidnapped. I know I need more coffee. But these are things that started running through my head

Maybe it was incest and all of the children were still born? I just do not understand if oneof the two is the parent why would you leave the remains behind if they were not burried? this is a weird case..

 

[CuriousTwo]

I think that's weird. Landlords are supposed to report income earned or lost from rentals on their income taxes. There is always the possibility of being audited by the IRS and you would really want to have your records straight. Something just doesn't feel right here.:shakehead:

Definitely illegal, but probably not that unusual, unfortunately.

 

[CuriousTwo]

Maybe it's not so unusual to check under the skirting when a tenant moves out. Looking under there could be a good indicator if there were any leaks, rodents, etc. Same reasons you might have someone look underneath your house.

And, the type of skirting they have (according to the pics I've seen), is very easy to remove. You just pull up the horizontal strip (it snaps into place - no screws) and use a screwdriver to remove the screws holding the vertical skirting sections in place. They're very lightweight and easy to manage.

Also, if they had any sections missing, it would have been easy for the landlord to see at a glance that there were items under the mobile home.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone put the items underneath and then didn't bother to reinstall the missing skirting sections.

JMHO.

 

[zelmajane]

Ok, not that I would do this, but if I did...
1. I'd bury the child, not store them under the trailer
2. If I had buried my child, and had to move, I think I'd want to take them with me (morbid, but I'm trying to think that way right now)
3. If I had put my child/ren under the trailer or in the house, or wherever, I would have taken them with me when I left.

I miscarried last year, an early miscarriage, but it causes things like this to make me even more angry.