NY NY - Northport, WhtFem 20-40, UP134470, "H.A." clothing, found in the LI sound near CT in a trunk, Oct'73

I don't wanna assume anything, but this could definitely be a spousal murder, as can be common with Jane Does.
Now that we know she was married, I'd agree. Still think she spent time in an institution somewhere just prior to death, though. Thinking maybe she was hospitalized with post-partem depression (with or without possible abortion), but there were problems in the home after her release (financial, conjugal, etc) and husband couldn't deal with it. jmo
 
It's an even better possibility if the husband didn't report her missing.
Absolutely. I also wonder whether this couple had any children. I had the sad thought, too, that maybe he wanted children and it wasn't going well, so he'd found another woman, and needed to dispose of our Jane Doe in order to be with her. Just a thought.
ETA: Or just found another woman, period.
 
Last edited:
Trunks made like that have the potential to float. Under the black coating there's usually plywood or high density fiberboard. It would probably float, although be partially submerged. The closure area is usually 2 tightly fitted metal bands, along with with an interlock inside. I could imagine it staying watertight for a time, and floating.

The killer probably thought it would sink because of the weight.
 
Trunks made like that have the potential to float. Under the black coating there's usually plywood or high density fiberboard. It would probably float, although be partially submerged. The closure area is usually 2 tightly fitted metal bands, along with with an interlock inside. I could imagine it staying watertight for a time, and floating.

The killer probably thought it would sink because of the weight.

As long as their's some air inside it will float, and bodies often times float, it would just add to the overall buoyancy.
 
LINK - trunk had grappling hook, anchor, drilled holes to let in water. Bayne flagged another fisherman (W.D.) who got the Coast Guard.
Link 2 - A whole different person ( P.D.) was named as the finder of the trunk - not Bayne or the fisherman he flagged down.


More links. The trunk was in the water for 2 days - to a week. No way it was a fisherman who found her. No one is re-finding a trunk floating in the ocean.
 
The other man, WD, at age 93, last lived in FL. (May be deceased now.) His name seems to end with "-rmuth" not "-ruth," another typo in the article.

So we have PB and WD. WD radios the Coast Guard, who notifies Suffolk County detectives (I assume due to proximity).

So the trunk was either intercepted before it could sink, or someone changed their mind about sinking it.
 
Last edited:
As for the labeled clothing - it was not uncommon, especially in cities with people living in apartment buildings, that there was one washer for the whole building shared by all tenants. Actually it is still the case in many apartment buildings. To avoid having laundry mixed up, clothing gets labeled.
It does not necessarily indicate institutionalization or sexwork.

This is likely a case of dad telling the kids „Oh, Mommy just left us for better pastures, no idea where she went…“
 
As for the labeled clothing - it was not uncommon, especially in cities with people living in apartment buildings, that there was one washer for the whole building shared by all tenants. Actually it is still the case in many apartment buildings. To avoid having laundry mixed up, clothing gets labeled.
It does not necessarily indicate institutionalization or sexwork.
RSBM
Thanks for sharing that. I wasn't aware of that practice.
This is likely a case of dad telling the kids „Oh, Mommy just left us for better pastures, no idea where she went…“
Maybe so.
I might be over-thinking it, but the fact she was wearing pantyhose with no shoes still bothers me. That and the all black undergarments under a cream colored floral print dress. Just seems odd...
 
RSBM
Thanks for sharing that. I wasn't aware of that practice.

Maybe so.
I might be over-thinking it, but the fact she was wearing pantyhose with no shoes still bothers me. That and the all black undergarments under a cream colored floral print dress. Just seems odd...
She may habe lost her shoes in the struggle. She may have been killed at home and not wearing shoes. And even if she wore them, her killer has no reason to put them in the trunk with her.
Black undergarments are a fashion thing and it was en vogue during different decades to combine black pantyhose with light colored dresses - id say early 70s, mid 1980s and again around 2000. My mom and aunt wore that style in the mid 80s and I did as a teen in 2000. And in the early 1970s, bold color contrasts were all the rage.
 
Can't get this one out of my mind. If, as reported, LE shared word about this UID across the country, no one had any info on a female MP? She had on a wedding ring. No one ever reported her missing?

She wore a size 7 dress, a junior size, typical of youthful styles of clothing geared to teens and younger women. So I lean towards her being in her early 20s. No one missed her?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
163
Guests online
486
Total visitors
649

Forum statistics

Threads
621,183
Messages
18,427,768
Members
239,470
Latest member
Oz7491
Back
Top