MI - Nevaeh Buchanan, 5, Monroe, 24 May 2009 - Body found - #5

[scandi]

Yes ~ and in this case the body was decomposing underneath it.

Agreed Panthera, and at 11 days into decomp the body would be bloated with gasses which evidently were escaping from the very strong odor they noticed. The norm is that Putrification stage ends at day 10 and turns into the drying out stage 4.

That swelling could have also caused that rounded top to the concrete block as they described. The concrete could have been a variable to the timing of decomp as the agressive blowflies at the scene are definitely stage 3, from 4 - 10 days after death.

http://www.deathonline.net/decomposition/decomposition/putrefaction.htm

IMO

 

[nursebeeme]

thank you mods for the subforum

 

[Facts given]

Whether suffocated, strangled, drowned... any would pose the risk of possible scratches (wherever skin exposed or not covered by clothing) but of any of these methods, it is drowning that would seem the least audible, IMO. Especially when in a fairly secluded location. A 50# child is hardly a match anywhere for 150-200# man eg, but least of all beneath the water.

Regardless of cause of death your question nevertheless remains: why not dumped into river. Encasing (vs dumping in river) may have appeared to pose less risk of surfacing or exposure but I agree it seems this was half-a$$ed, drunken attempt at cover-up--and/or could have been intended to permit perp to revisit scene.

arrot:

Yep,
but I have hardly heard any abducted child who was killed by drowning. If the perp is SO, then I would assume the cause of death is not drowning.
it is not yet known where is the actual murder scene, also
If she was killed near the river, it doesn't necessarily mean she was drowned.

Wonder whether the autopsy results will be made public, what's the law in Michigan, for example in Cantu's case I believe the exact COD is not publicly known.

 

[scandi]

I disagree with the reports that whoever did this was used to working with concrete. Anyone with knowledge of concrete would know that a thin layer poured over a spongy object would crack.

It certainly makes one wonder Chilly as that would be a given IMO

It also makes me wonder if Mr Lanning's thought of the 'organized' killer is really what we have here. Not done to cover up a murder necessarily the killer being somewhat relaxed, although he said the classifications are not always constant. It doesn't jive to me with the sloppy job done on that concrete. Also leaving the bag there! Either sloppy or stupid, eh?

 

[panthera]

Agreed Panthera, and at 11 days into decomp the body would be bloated with gasses which evidently were escaping from the very strong odor they noticed. The norm is that Putrification stage ends at day 10 and turns into the drying out stage 4.

That swelling could have also caused that rounded top to the concrete block as they described. The concrete could have been a variable to the timing of decomp as the agressive blowflies at the scene are definitely stage 3, from 4 - 10 days after death.

http://www.deathonline.net/decomposition/decomposition/putrefaction.htm

IMO

I agree, and I also know what would happen with the man sitting on top of the concrete, which would put pressure on the swollen (bloated) body ~ and it wouldn't be pretty. MOO

 

[panthera]

It certainly makes one wonder Chilly as that would be a given IMO

It also makes me wonder if Mr Lanning's thought of the 'organized' killer is really what we have here. Not done to cover up a murder necessarily the killer being somewhat relaxed, although he said the classifications are not always constant. It doesn't jive to me with the sloppy job done on that concrete. Also leaving the bag there! Either sloppy or stupid, eh?

Or maybe a car drove by and he thought he was going to get caught so he hurried out of there, leaving behind the partially burned glove and the cement bag? Putting her in a shallow grave with concrete over her, perhaps as a marker for a later visit, sounds like he had some kind of personal connection with Nevaeh. Or maybe it was just in his mind that he did? MOO

 

[fortytwo]

Hi Truthwillsetufree, I agree with most of your post except for the strength of the concrete. You used 2 words that give a different interpretation of it from Mr Bickley's {sp} story, 'flick' and 'thin'.

He said SS to they had been fishing there for awhile, sitting on the 2 real rocks with his feet up on the concrete, up and down as one does when fishing, kicking at the dirt when he stood up on it and it seemed to give way and he realized it wasn't regular ground. He kicked at the dirt on it again and a piece chipped off and he saw skin underneath.

That gives me the idea it might not have been so thin but was instead not very strong. He also said he had the thought someone had poured cement powder on the spot and then thrown water on it which was why it seemed powdery in spots.

So I think the concrete shell over her was thicker than it was thin as he said he chipped a piece off by kicking it after it began to crack. And it was weaker because it was not mixed properly.

xox

I agree that whoever did this is unlikely to have mixed the concrete right, but we may not have to work too hard to account for the way this concrete was described to have behaved.

Concrete at regular strength if around 1/2 in. or so thick without a very solid substrate would have behaved exactly as described by the witness. I expect that the concrete poured over the body was not uniform and much of it could have fallen close to this range or even less. This would explain "flaking" as it feathered out.

We don't really know how much concrete was involved, but the one 90 lb. bag discussed so far isn't much. After it was mixed it would have fit into about five 1 gal. water jugs.

At a uniform 1/2 in. thick it would have covered an area about 3 ft. x 5 ft.

The scenario you describe is very probable, but I have a feeling that the concrete wasn't particularly thick to begin with.

 

[fortytwo]

I disagree with the reports that whoever did this was used to working with concrete. Anyone with knowledge of concrete would know that a thin layer poured over a spongy object would crack.

Yes. You are correct.

 

[STEADFAST]

Yes. You are correct.

Maybe whoever did it just wanted to conceal the body and smells for a little while until the coast was clear, and they wanted it to be easy to retrieve.

 

[Peliman]

I think the body concealment was a bit hasty and not thought out well. What criminal would want to be caught with the girl while the cops are blowing hot air down their backs. It still seems they could have found a more remote location for the deed.

 

[tfrohning]

Any news today???

 

[Steely Dan]

I can't find the link again but know I read LE found "" in the search of his home..I can't recall if it was "kiddie" but if it was "kiddie" that's a crime & he would've been arrested so my guess is it was not.

I believe he is the one who always parked where the scooter was found..The burnt glove at the dump site also raises a huge red flag to me..Do we know if he has an alibi?

If it was child I'm sure that would've gotten out by now.

I'm telling ya...it seems to me almost like she blamed Neveah in some weird way. With the "I trusted her" statement and then the statement about wanting to see her one last time and make sure its completely over. KWIM???

What does KWIM mean? :waitasec:

One thing that is really starting to bug me..

This place is DEFINITELY isolated to folks that don't know the area. BUT it is not isolated to folks that do, and I daresay, there's plenty that do in Dundee...so why put her body there? Is the perp NOT familiar with the area? Why would he put her in a place if he is from there that he KNOWS people go to? Why just cover her with a thin layer of concrete when he KNOWs that people are trudging all around there fishing? I was convinced he was local, and I still think that, but now I'm wondering why he would put her in a place that he knew people would be going too?

It may not be that many people and it also is probably a place he's familiar with so he may have already had an idea in his head about what he planned to do.

I disagree with the reports that whoever did this was used to working with concrete. Anyone with knowledge of concrete would know that a thin layer poured over a spongy object would crack.

If it is GK who did this then it's quite possible he was planning to come back and do more once the concrete had dried. Unfortunately he was arrested very quickly on a parole violation.

BTW, his picture that's shown in a lot of the articles about this gives me the serious heebeejeebies. Just looking at him sends a shiver down my spine. I can't see how anyone would want to get near that dude.

 

[fortytwo]

I disagree with the reports that whoever did this was used to working with concrete. Anyone with knowledge of concrete would know that a thin layer poured over a spongy object would crack.

More thoughts on this.

I have been trying to puzzle out the "why" of the concrete from its first mention. All of the ideas I have come up with result in "It wouldn't have worked".

As we have seen, it didn't protect from discovery from traffic.

It didn't serve to conceal the body, but rather attracted attention, which would be expected.

It wouldn't have protected from animals or insects.

It wouldn't have protected from erosion, or at least not for long. Erosion would have first drawn attention to the spot, and then probably undermined around it.

It certainly wouldn't have accelerated decomposition, nor would it have slowed it down significantly.

There isn't much indication of intelligent planning here.

Even the site itself is remarkably stupid. Far from being "isolated", I can think of few places more likely than a good fishing spot close to town to guarantee visitors at all times of day, night, or year with plenty of time on their hands to ponder their immediate surroundings, and reason to walk around.

When I finally found the location on Google Earth streetview I told (the stunningly beautiful) Mrs. fortytwo that any fisherman would instantly recognize that as a popular place to fish, even if they were moving 60 mph and had never been in the state before.

There were times in my youth when my car's ignition would have cut off on its own just driving past it.

 

[fortytwo]

Maybe whoever did it just wanted to conceal the body and smells for a little while until the coast was clear, and they wanted it to be easy to retrieve.

Perhaps, but if so they weren't thinking very clearly. A wash of concrete over the body would accomplish neither.

 

[Chilly Willy]

Maybe whoever did it just wanted to conceal the body and smells for a little while until the coast was clear, and they wanted it to be easy to retrieve.

Sorry, but I disagree. No one would encase a body in concrete and expect to retrieve it, IMO. The perp must have thought this was a permanent way to dispose of the body but had no real knowledge of how to use concrete. I don't think it's very common for a perp to move bodies around once they start decaying.

 

[fortytwo]

I think the body concealment was a bit hasty and not thought out well. What criminal would want to be caught with the girl while the cops are blowing hot air down their backs. It still seems they could have found a more remote location for the deed.

Agreed. I'm having more and more trouble thinking of a worse location for disposal.

Someone earlier mentioned that it appears the perp(s?) were panicked and impaired. I have thought so from the first, and become more convinced.

Whoever it was will be caught because of bone deep utter stupidity.

 

[Chilly Willy]

More thoughts on this.

I have been trying to puzzle out the "why" of the concrete from its first mention. All of the ideas I have come up with result in "It wouldn't have worked".

As we have seen, it didn't protect from discovery from traffic.

It didn't serve to conceal the body, but rather attracted attention, which would be expected.

It wouldn't have protected from animals or insects.

It wouldn't have protected from erosion, or at least not for long. Erosion would have first drawn attention to the spot, and then probably undermined around it.

It certainly wouldn't have accelerated decomposition, nor would it have slowed it down significantly.

There isn't much indication of intelligent planning here.

Even the site itself is remarkably stupid. Far from being "isolated", I can think of few places more likely than a good fishing spot close to town to guarantee visitors at all times of day, night, or year with plenty of time on their hands to ponder their immediate surroundings, and reason to walk around.

When I finally found the location on Google Earth streetview I told (the stunningly beautiful) Mrs. fortytwo that any fisherman would instantly recognize that as a popular place to fish, even if they were moving 60 mph and had never been in the state before.

There were times in my youth when my car's ignition would have cut off on its own just driving past it.

I completely agree with you about the lack of intelligence, however sometimes the best place to hide something is right out in the open. The perp may have thought that people might notice the concrete but they wouldn't think much about it. "Hmmm....look someone dumped some left over concrete here. What a jerk." He likely did not expect the concrete to crack and never imagined that someone would deliberately attempt to break it up to see what was underneath.

I also agree that any avid fisherman driving past would instantly recognize that spot as a fishing area. It's some kind of sixth sense or something.

ETA: Another thought - this could be someone who regularly fishes in that spot and who thought it would be nice to have a nice concrete slab to stand or sit on rather than the slimy river bank. Might have thought other fishermen would be grateful too.

 

[Peliman]

Agreed. I'm having more and more trouble thinking of a worse location for disposal.

Someone earlier mentioned that it appears the perp(s?) were panicked and impaired. I have thought so from the first, and become more convinced.

Whoever it was will be caught because of bone deep utter stupidity.

I think we also have a burned rubber glove and a beer can they have located the store which sold it.

One thought rolling through my mind was the beer can being used to pour water from the river onto the concrete. They need to get water to powder somehow.

Then we have a shovel needed to dig the shallow grave. There has to be cut marks in the dirt somewhere, maybe already cast in concrete. Thinking out loud...

 

[panthera]

Sorry, but I disagree. No one would encase a body in concrete and expect to retrieve it, IMO. The perp must have thought this was a permanent way to dispose of the body but had no real knowledge of how to use concrete. I don't think it's very common for a perp to move bodies around once they start decaying.

I don't think they intended to move the body either. It seems to be a hastily made make-shift grave with the concrete as a marker. If anything the concrete would draw attention to it, imo. :waitasec:

 

[Chilly Willy]

I think we also have a burned rubber glove and a beer can they have located the store which sold it.

One thought rolling through my mind was the beer can being used to pour water from the river onto the concrete. They need to get water to powder somehow.

Then we have a shovel needed to dig the shallow grave. There has to be cut marks in the dirt somewhere, maybe already cast in concrete. Thinking out loud...

The concrete was poured dry out of the bag according to reports and water was poured over it. That's not an uncommon way to use Quik-crete. The beer can was under the concrete, therefore could not have been used to carry the river water. Aside from that, a beer can only holds 12 oz. It would have taken about a gazillion trips.

If they came prepared with Quik-crete and a shovel, they probably also had a bucket.