Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: wonders
Well, it is unusual. The only other explanation I can think of is that perhaps, as her body was small and lean, and if animals had opened up sufficient areas, the fluids evaporated in the dry air, rather than seeping down into the ground. I have no experience with such a case, though, and it still seems to me there would have been at least some drainage from the pelvic area. *CAPPSMADNESS: What do you think?

I think that if the animals would have "opened the corpse up" prior to putrification, then the body could not have been at the site as the defense wants us to believe, wonders, you sound very knowledgeable in this field, without grossing everyone out, think about the natural occurances that occur post-mortem. The bacteria in the body would have started degenerating the tissues within a very short time after death.

I have read about the condition of the body, it was in good enough shape to see bruises, and internal organs (that which remained). I cannot fathom how the defense can expect anyone to believe that the child was placed there shortly after death. If she were "opened up" during the early stages of decomp, then that would expalain the green bottle flies -not to mention that the body would have been in a far more advanced stage of decomp then it was. But if the child was decomposing for 2 weeks (and protected by the mummification)there would be NO GBF's.

761 posted on 08/16/2002 7:53:02 PM PDT by CAPPSMADNESS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies ]


To: CAPPSMADNESS
I cannot fathom how the defense can expect anyone to believe that the child was placed there shortly after death.

Do you mean the prosecution?
762 posted on 08/16/2002 7:54:42 PM PDT by small_l_libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 761 | View Replies ]

To: CAPPSMADNESS
The bacteria in the body would have started degenerating the tissues within a very short time after death.

Agreed all the way!

In fact, I agree with everything you say (please search and read all my posts on this thread, to get a better idea of where I'm coming from, if you like).

This leaves only two logical conclusions: the child was killed around Feb 14- 18 and left there at or very shortly after death OR something weird was going on, like the body was frozen or something.

Lastly, it's wonderful, and such a welcome relief, to meet you, another person who has dealt with dead bodies lying in open and understands. So glad I had the privelege to meet you!

774 posted on 08/16/2002 8:04:28 PM PDT by wonders
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 761 | View Replies ]

To: CAPPSMADNESS
Oops, there's a third possibility: She was killed around Feb 14 - 18. Animals came, flies came, putrefaction happened, the gases built up, the fluids found their escape (you know how all that takes place, no need to gross out everyone else)and THEN the body was moved to Dehesa and left in approximately the same position as in the first location. That would be soooo weird, though.

778 posted on 08/16/2002 8:07:56 PM PDT by wonders
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 761 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson