Post your PROFILE

[Really?]

No it wouldn't. But if you would be there at night in a bout of drug induced delusional paranoia, you would have not take the time to get the shoe. You would have hurried on. And if you would have died later, this shoe would be quite a way distant from your body then.

Or, maybe, if you liked the shoes enough you would try to retrieve it.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Regarding her pants, I think that the theory posited by LE that they fell off of her is ridiculous. It was reported that she was wearing skinny jeans. I don't know if anyone here ever wears skinny jeans, but if you do, then you'll know that this theory is absolutely ridiculous. Unless she was wearing skinny jeans that were 10 sizes too big for her (and I highly doubt that), they are not going to fall off while running. If you don't believe me, go get a pair of skinny jeans and try to run in them. They will not fall off. Trust me.

Even if she tried to remove them herself while running, it would have been very difficult. One of the features of skinny jeans is that they're really tight around the ankle area. It's not an easy thing to quickly take them off, especially while standing.

I don't know how she became separated from her pants, but I'm fairly certain that the pants didn't just fall off of her. Even if they got snagged on a branch, they're not going to totally rip away from the body that easily.

I would like to know in what state those jeans were. Ripped mostly to rugs? Or completely intact. You seem to ASSUME that they were mostly intact.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Or, maybe, if you liked the shoes enough you would try to retrieve it.

Ok, so someone runs out of a house under circumstances that look pretty much like a drug induced bout of paranoia. She runs through half ON. She runs into the marshland. She runs and runs ... and then she would return for a shoe ... yeah, I can see that.

 

[mcme]

Or she died wearing shoes and pants and they floated off when the water got high after SG was reduced to bones only.

 

[MrsPC]

Or she died wearing shoes and pants and they floated off when the water got high after SG was reduced to bones only.

Gilbert's remains were extremely uphill from where her clothing was found.

 

[CriminalMinds]

Or she died wearing shoes and pants and they floated off when the water got high after SG was reduced to bones only.

:what:

 

[LINative13]

Or she died wearing shoes and pants and they floated off when the water got high after SG was reduced to bones only.

Sorry, but I believe to much in science to go along with you. They would have gotten all knotted up around her. Are you a boater? You ever leave a line in the water by a dock pole? It wraps itself around it because of the tide. So if said tide was strong enough to rip the pants off of her they would have had to be ripped off in one tide change. Otherwise multiple tide changes (forces going in different directions) would have tied them up around the bones.

And like I said, I was in there....nothing is being carried that far without being rippsed to absolute pieces.

 

[marie-chantal]

I would like to know in what state those jeans were. Ripped mostly to rugs? Or completely intact. You seem to ASSUME that they were mostly intact.

Again with the rudeness. Please stop. It's tiring, inappropriate and childish.

I only know what I've read from the LE reports that have been discussed in MSM, just like you do; so we're both ASSUMING things.

The jeans were off of her body, according to LE. I have no idea how intact they were; I just know that they were not on her body. I take this to mean that the body did not have any part of the jeans on it at all and that they were not immediately surrounding her body as if they had become shredded while the body was laying there.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Gilbert's remains were extremely uphill from where her clothing was found.

Well, then it's hard to say whether she distanced from her jeans or the jeans from her. A human can run uphill, cloth can drift downhill. But ... there is something funny with mammals feeling from something. They all run surprisingly often uphill. Must be such a hardwired instinct to get an overview.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Again with the rudeness. Please stop. It's tiring, inappropriate and childish.

I only know what I've read from the LE reports that have been discussed in MSM, just like you do; so we're both ASSUMING things.

The jeans were off of her body, according to LE. I have no idea how intact they were; I just know that they were not on her body. I take this to mean that the body did not have any part of the jeans on it at all and that they were not immediately surrounding her body as if they had become shredded while the body was laying there.

Why is it, every time, you have a logic error in your posts, that you accuse me of being rude for not following you into that logic failure? I think, to follow you in the assumption that those jeans were as good as new would be childish and unnecessary waste of energy. And please stop to put words in my mouth, I never assumed anything about the state of the jeans. All I said is, I don't know in what state they were. So interpreting everything as if they would be as new is pure assumption. So, the only thing, I assume is I don't know in which state they were. No, in fact, I'm pretty sure I don't know. And now we can stop with you turning words around in my mouth. I rarely assume, I deduct. You can read up the difference in a dictionary.

And on the risk to be called rude again, but since the jeans or the remains of the jeans were downhill from the remains of the body, did you ever consider the local wildlife getting access to the flesh?

 

[PreciousDust]

I would like to know in what state those jeans were.

New York.

 

[LR1]

Not to rehash old arguments but if there was no foul play which I don't think there were, the only way I can see her being found quarter mile from her belongings is if she simply discarded them during her trek through the marsh, for whatever reason. also I've never heard the jeans being described as skinny jeans

 

[Peter Brendt]

New York.

That too :floorlaugh:

 

[mcme]

Gilbert's remains were extremely uphill from where her clothing was found.

Uphill? I'm not sure what your trying to say with that word, but even though her pants, shoes and bag were found a quarter mile from her body, the difference in elevation between the body and belongings is 12-18 inches. Her body was in a place that would flood sometimes, but not with every hard or prolonged rain.Her belongings were found in the direction the winds of a nor'easter would take them from the body. A nor'easter is the type of storm that would flood the marsh enough to get SG's body under water. Shoes, a hand bag and wet denim all float very well.

 

[mcme]

Sorry, but I believe to much in science to go along with you. They would have gotten all knotted up around her. Are you a boater? You ever leave a line in the water by a dock pole? It wraps itself around it because of the tide. So if said tide was strong enough to rip the pants off of her they would have had to be ripped off in one tide change. Otherwise multiple tide changes (forces going in different directions) would have tied them up around the bones.

And like I said, I was in there....nothing is being carried that far without being rippsed to absolute pieces.

There are no tides where SG was found, only changes in depth from rain water drainage. Maybe once or twice a year is there enough water in the marsh to cover the area where her body was found. Yes, I'm a life long boater, and long time resident of the barrier beach community. I know how things move around on the local marshes when the water gets deep.

 

[LR1]

From what I remember the belongings were found in the same general area. I'll reluctantly grant you they could float away but I cant see them floating so far away and all settling down in the same place.

 

[Just K]

Has anyone ever considered the idea that if SG had two pairs of shoes that she may have had these jeans as a backup pair in her bag? Then when the bag is left, in the brambles of the marsh, so were the jeans and possibly the ballet flats. Has it ever been determined if she was found wearing any undergarments or lingerie and if she was wearing the tall boots?

 

[Peter Brendt]

From what I remember the belongings were found in the same general area. I'll reluctantly grant you they could float away but I cant see them floating so far away and all settling down in the same place.

That is a little bit my problem. While it appears to me more likely, she lost or got rid of them and ran on, all those items, we talk here are neither high out of water not especially heavy. So, if they would float, provided there was enough water, they would all more or less swim right in the water surface. Which means, they would be rather subject to the current of the water than to the wind. Which, given 8-12 inches "altitude" difference, would make them all end up in the same general area. So, I can't see a way to figure whether they drifted or whether they were dropped and SG went on on her run.

 

[Peter Brendt]

Has anyone ever considered the idea that if SG had two pairs of shoes that she may have had these jeans as a backup pair in her bag? Then when the bag is left, in the brambles of the marsh, so were the jeans and possibly the ballet flats. Has it ever been determined if she was found wearing any undergarments or lingerie and if she was wearing the tall boots?

Considered yes, found answers no

 

[LR1]

That is a little bit my problem. While it appears to me more likely, she lost or got rid of them and ran on, all those items, we talk here are neither high out of water not especially heavy. So, if they would float, provided there was enough water, they would all more or less swim right in the water surface. Which means, they would be rather subject to the current of the water than to the wind. Which, given 8-12 inches "altitude" difference, would make them all end up in the same general area. So, I can't see a way to figure whether they drifted or whether they were dropped and SG went on on her run.

Of course I would never say never, but my last point on this would be if you take a close look at the terrain in question there is actually a elevated strip of land that has a lot of bramble and even a few trees growing on it in between where she was found and where her belongings were found. google earth tells me its approximately a foot higher than the surrounding area so it would seem to me there would have to be 5 or more feet or water in the place in order for the belongings to have unimpeded travel and not get caught up in some of the bramble.