UID Victim: The Female Toddler, UP9704, found Gilgo Beach Apr 2011

[Peter Brendt]

It is a large widerness area traversed by few roads. People who want to hide bodies usually hide them in wilderness areas where discovery is unlikely (because they are wild areas people don't normally go to). If there are few roads, the dump sites will be linked by the roads (on account of the killers/dumpers not having star trek transporters to beam them far from the road).

Not rocket science. Or is there something I'm missing?

A lot:
First thing, a lot of SKs don't build their clustered dump sites in "wilderness" because they plan on revisiting. Take Corll for example, also Ridgway, Bundy, etc, etc. Ever heard of Cosden?
Second thing, those roads are not just going forgotten through "wilderness". In fact, they cut the wilderness to pieces and along those roads are human built structures, for example OB. Well, that's a collection of structures. Thus, there is human population around actually going there.
Third thing, NYC is right behind the horizon. We talk here about the nearest bigger recreational area next to an urban center of twelve million people. So, remote is obviously somewhat relative.

 

[deedee21]

Because they dont have much more than a few bones. Can't release info you don't have.

Has it been reported thats there no skull? Therefore no sketch? If thats the case its saounds like Manorville.

 

[deedee21]

It would be extremely unprofessional for LE to say anything other than "no comment" to someone other than immediate relatives. Just because the GB4 girls were found in the same area does not entitle their relatives to information about another case. They are not related to the child and it's mother, so they are NOT entitiled to information about that case.

Its unprofessional not to give it to NAMUS.

 

[Tugela]

Its unprofessional not to give it to NAMUS.

Relatives of other dead women are not NAMUS last time I looked.

 

[deedee21]

Relatives of other dead women are not NAMUS last time I looked.

We can agree to disagree.

 

[Tugela]

A lot:
First thing, a lot of SKs don't build their clustered dump sites in "wilderness" because they plan on revisiting. Take Corll for example, also Ridgway, Bundy, etc, etc. Ever heard of Cosden?
Second thing, those roads are not just going forgotten through "wilderness". In fact, they cut the wilderness to pieces and along those roads are human built structures, for example OB. Well, that's a collection of structures. Thus, there is human population around actually going there.
Third thing, NYC is right behind the horizon. We talk here about the nearest bigger recreational area next to an urban center of twelve million people. So, remote is obviously somewhat relative.

Wilderness is a wild area. Allways has been, allways will be. How many people live next door is irrelevant.

Unless you are trying to suggest that the swamps of the barrier islands are places well trodden, but from the looks of the photographs I've seen I would have to say you are are wrong in that case.

I used to work at a place in a small industrial area alongside a major river surrounded by swamp. If you were running late the busses did not go the the industrial park after a certain time and you would have to walk down a path through the swamp to get to work. That place, I allways thought would be a perfect place to dump a body, because once you got 20 or 30 feet off the path, no one would find it because no one ever went there. It was totally wild, beavers, snakes, a million slugs, fish, the works.

Simply being in or near a city did not make it any less wild.

 

[LINative13]

The GB4 spot is also in between two highly foot trafficed areas. 100 feet either way from the bodies furthest from each other and you breach into those areas used by people.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Wilderness is a wild area. Allways has been, allways will be. How many people live next door is irrelevant.

Unless you are trying to suggest that the swamps of the barrier islands are places well trodden, but from the looks of the photographs I've seen I would have to say you are are wrong in that case.

I used to work at a place in a small industrial area alongside a major river surrounded by swamp. If you were running late the busses did not go the the industrial park after a certain time and you would have to walk down a path through the swamp to get to work. That place, I allways thought would be a perfect place to dump a body, because once you got 20 or 30 feet off the path, no one would find it because no one ever went there. It was totally wild, beavers, snakes, a million slugs, fish, the works.

Simply being in or near a city did not make it any less wild.

Of course, in your opinion, it is irrelevant, how many people who could stumble over the bodies live there ... I think, that needs no further commentary.
The point is not "wilderness". In the last decades, we have seen dump sites along hiking paths, roads, in recreational park areas, marinas and yes, also in wilderness areas. The relevant point was always, what did the unsub tried to achieve? Most clustered dump sites are for keeping the victims in possession. That means re-visiting and that means the possibility of re-visiting in the first place. Now, there are different kinds of SKs out there, who re-visit their victims. SKs like Ridgway or Bundy in his Washington State time, go back, talk to their victims, may commit necrophilia. Those guys need time and privacy and chose the places for their dump sites accordingly. It's kind of an after-live relation they maintain to their victims. Often, you will find, when those are caught, they gave names to victims when they didn't know the real names. Those SKs depersonalize during the kill and pseudo-personalize afterwards.
The other kind has no relation to the single victim. Whether before or after the kill, the victim is merely means to achieve something. Therefore, the body is a trophy, but holds as individual no special significance. It's the number that counts. The prove, to have it done. Thus, this kind of re-visitor needs no privacy, no time, all he needs is a reminder. And therefore, drive-by dump sites have become somewhat popular. There is a need to revisit in the man who placed the GB4. There is no need in Manorville. Two different guys. Who left body parts in one and the same area because there are not many other areas equally fitting their needs left.

 

[Tugela]

Well, I think the facts speak for themselves.

After all, this was an area that had allmost a dozen bodies dumped in it that everyone missed for years until LE went over it with a fine tooth comb. Who knows, maybe there are a lot more a few inches under the ground as well.

Obviously no one walked around in these areas.

Obviously these areas are wild.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Well, I think the facts speak for themselves.

After all, this was an area that had allmost a dozen bodies dumped in it that everyone missed for years until LE went over it with a fine tooth comb. Who knows, maybe there are a lot more a few inches under the ground as well.

Obviously no one walked around in these areas.

Obviously these areas are wild.

Fine, if you insist. Four of those bodies were found in brushes along a road, about a mile from Oak Beach. Allegedly in Oak Beach live people. The truth is, people are not especially observant. Harrison Graham had 7 bodies in a two room apartment in Northern Philadelphia, so according to your logic, Philadelphia is wilderness. Anthony Sowell had 11 in his duplex. Which makes Celveland a wilderness. Dean Corll had 33 at a Marina and next to Lake Sam Houston (which is a known recreation area for Houston), well, despite for those 50,000 to 100,000 visitors there, according to your logic, that is wilderness. Gacy had what, 32, under his house and under his BBQ in Chicago. So, Chicago is wilderness? Rifkin dumped one oh his victims right next to a concrete plant and another one next to a bridge in NYC. So, New York City is wilderness ...

 

[Tugela]

Fine, if you insist. Four of those bodies were found in brushes along a road, about a mile from Oak Beach. Allegedly in Oak Beach live people. The truth is, people are not especially observant. Harrison Graham had 7 bodies in a two room apartment in Northern Philadelphia, so according to your logic, Philadelphia is wilderness. Anthony Sowell had 11 in his duplex. Which makes Celveland a wilderness. Dean Corll had 33 at a Marina and next to Lake Sam Houston (which is a known recreation area for Houston), well, despite for those 50,000 to 100,000 visitors there, according to your logic, that is wilderness. Gacy had what, 32, under his house and under his BBQ in Chicago. So, Chicago is wilderness? Rifkin dumped one oh his victims right next to a concrete plant and another one next to a bridge in NYC. So, New York City is wilderness ...

Because one killer disposes his victims in his back yard does not make all disposal areas back yards, which is what you seem to be suggesting. What relevance does Gacy's or any one elses location have to do with it?

Salt water marsh and beach scrub is wilderness. If you doubt that, try walking through some of it someday. That is where THESE bodies have been dropped. Whatever Gacy or Rifkin did is competely irrelevant to this case.

This is getting ridiculous.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Because one killer disposes his victims in his back yard does not make all disposal areas back yards, which is what you seem to be suggesting. What relevance does Gacy's or any one elses location have to do with it?

Salt water marsh and beach scrub is wilderness. If you doubt that, try walking through some of it someday. That is where THESE bodies have been dropped. Whatever Gacy or Rifkin did is competely irrelevant to this case.

This is getting ridiculous.

Yep it is. First you argue SKs like wilderness to drop bodies, then, if I bring examples for those who doesn't and tell you why they didn't, other cases are suddenly irrelevant. Can you please sort out, which of your arguments are usable for discussion and which ones you will pull back in five minutes?

 

[LINative13]

Ive explained this; the GB4 were placed with precision. Only a local would know that particular spot.

 

[deedee21]

Ive explained this; the GB4 were placed with precision. Only a local would know that particular spot.

I think your right. He must of been shocked when LE discovered the remains. He probably found a new dumping ground by now. Where?

 

[LINative13]

Beats the hell out of me.

 

[WI1987]

Probably somewhere on the East End - that's my best guess.

 

[OnTheCase27]

My guess would be North Shore probably around the Huntington area.

 

[WI1987]

My guess would be North Shore probably around the Huntington area.

Good idea, I dident think of that. There are some pretty desolate stretches around Sweet Hollow Road and West Hills County Park off of 110.

 

[Tugela]

Yep it is. First you argue SKs like wilderness to drop bodies, then, if I bring examples for those who doesn't and tell you why they didn't, other cases are suddenly irrelevant. Can you please sort out, which of your arguments are usable for discussion and which ones you will pull back in five minutes?

Here is a lesson in logic:

Just because SKs LIKE to dump bodies in wilderness areas, it does NOT mean that ALL SKs dump bodies in wilderness areas. FFS.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Here is a lesson in logic:

Just because SKs LIKE to dump bodies in wilderness areas, it does NOT mean that ALL SKs dump bodies in wilderness areas. FFS.

No, especially not since SKs who build clustered dump sites, like LISK do so because they intend to re-visit. Which is a little hard if you can't reach the spot again. So your "logic" starts already with the wrong assumption, this is merely about disposal.