Last edited by a moderator:
Investigators are attempting to track down the living relatives of a baby whose body was found under the floorboards of a flat above a pizza shop.
Contractors made the grim discovery while renovating a pair of flats in Bishop Auckland, County Durham at about 11.15am on July 28. The remains were taken to the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle.
Is it correct now?I messed up title, I've requested a mod to amend for me
RSBMBut why did they hide it under the floorboards? You would assume it would be easier to just throw it away somewhere. On the other hand I could see a scared young girl or maid who hid her pregnancy from parents or employers do that because there is less of a chance being discovered.
I would think it might be 30 years as opposed to 100 years---can't believe no one updated the flooring in over 100 years. It makes more sense that it hasn't been done in 30 years. IMOAnother article says the remains may only be about 30 years old.
In any case, FGG would be worthwile doing.
But why did they hide it under the floorboards? You would assume it would be easier to just throw it away somewhere. On the other hand I could see a scared young girl or maid who hid her pregnancy from parents or employers do that because there is less of a chance being discovered.
Who lived in the house and especially the room where the baby was found?
I believe the newspaper is a good date estimate and 100 years are correct. When was the floor put in?
You would presumably bury your baby in your house if you wanted the baby to stay close to you. JMOAnother article says the remains may only be about 30 years old.
In any case, FGG would be worthwile doing.
But why did they hide it under the floorboards? You would assume it would be easier to just throw it away somewhere. On the other hand I could see a scared young girl or maid who hid her pregnancy from parents or employers do that because there is less of a chance being discovered.
Who lived in the house and especially the room where the baby was found?
I believe the newspaper is a good date estimate and 100 years are correct. When was the floor put in?
YesIs it correct now?
Not uncommon in older houses in England, I've definitely lived in places where the floorboards haven't been taken up in more than that! It can be very expensive to replace something structural and old like that purely for cosmetic reasons.I would think it might be 30 years as opposed to 100 years---can't believe no one updated the flooring in over 100 years. It makes more sense that it hasn't been done in 30 years. IMO
I would think it might be 30 years as opposed to 100 years---can't believe no one updated the flooring in over 100 years. It makes more sense that it hasn't been done in 30 years. IMO
Yes, maybe it was a baby who died at birth and mom couldn't bare to part with her?You would presumably bury your baby in your house if you wanted the baby to stay close to you. JMO
It's a suspicious death, with twine tied around his/her neck.Yes, maybe it was a baby who died at birth and mom couldn't bare to part with her?
It came from the police.Oh just read the twine part. Be careful with facts from the Daily mail unfortunately well known for "Embellished facts". It might be the paper was wrapped and then the twine was put on top to hold it in place, but they would like to leave that out usually !
After reading that twine was found around the baby’s neck I think they were killed via strangulation. As another user said seems suspiciousYes, maybe it was a baby who died at birth and mom couldn't bare to part with her?
Even Durham police has been quoted as saying 'likely suspicious'. Relatives search in Bishop Auckland baby body investigationAfter reading that twine was found around the baby’s neck I think they were killed via strangulation. As another user said seems suspicious
I don't know, but they are going to do radio-carbon analysis, which will take up to 8 weeks (in same bbc article I linked above). Maybe after radio-carbon analysis, their way forwards will be clearer? I am not a scientist nor am I scientifically-minded.I wonder if they could do DNA testing on the remains?
Yes, I'm careful with information from the Daily Fail too - good pictures, but a bit shaky on facts sometimes MOO. But in this case I don't believe that the twine was wrapped around the paper to hold it in place. In a local newspaper they state: "The human remains were found wrapped in a newspaper that has deteriorated... Durham Constabulary said investigators have been able to identify a fragment of the paper...Police said officers identified twine wrapped around the infant’s neck."Baby skeleton found under floorboards believed to be more than 100 years old It really sounds to me like: twine around baby's neck to strangle it (poor little baby, hope strangulation was quick) and then remains wrapped in newspaper, of which only a fragment is or some fragments are left.Oh just read the twine part. Be careful with facts from the Daily mail unfortunately well known for "Embellished facts". It might be the paper was wrapped and then the twine was put on top to hold it in place, but they would like to leave that out usually !