Replies

Couple of things. Supposedly her body was covered with about a foot of brush. The dog smelled something and was digging in the area when the skull appears. Police called, area taped off.

I don't own a dog but I don't think I would just let one randomly start digging in a public area. I'm getting conflicting info on exactly how the body was found - whether it was buried, covered or just laying there. Burying would imply an act to hide evidence, covered might.

Question. The cadets check the area last July, if not more than once. Two months, June and July. Wouldn't the heat have helped decay and wouldn't cadets smell a decaying body?

No ME either so I don't know how long a decomposing body retains its "freshness". I suppose it varies somewhat on factors like temperature, weight, presence of scavengers (vultures, maggots, etc.), hydration, etc.

I do wonder, as someone else pointed out, if there were two reports of jogger attacks in this part of the park, why wouldn't the cops have made an even more thorough search of the area when they were supposedly combing parks for evidence last summer - particularly the one park with a direct and known link to Levy (her computer records)?

For now, I'm in the "too convenient" camp of skeptics.

I don't own a dog but I don't think I would just let one randomly start digging in a public area. I'm getting conflicting info on exactly how the body was found - whether it was buried, covered or just laying there. Burying would imply an act to hide evidence, covered might

On hearing this story, my 12 year old son who couldn't figure out why the guy would be "digging" for turtles in the woods. He claimed they don't burrow in the ground.

What I heard was that a man and his dog were walking through the park. The man was looking for turtles. The dog took off, sniffed the area where the body was eventually found. The dog started digging and uncovered the skull. The police confirmed this on FNC, later adding that some of the bones were found under about a foot of brush. Now, whether animals had scavenged or not... some bones, a hand for instance was found some distance away. 60 yards away if I recall correctly.

The hand if scavenged would probably not be covered by a foot of brush. This might explain confusion or conflicting reports of 'out in the open', versus covered.

But... it also raises another question. Naturally. If scavenging animals, had inadvertantly dismembered several bones, then wouldn't most if not all of the remains have been uncovered? Course, I suppose if the brush were heavy enough tree branches, maybe an animal pulling on a limb wouldn't disturb the covering over the majority of the body.