Posted on 06/09/2002 8:51:11 PM PDT by crystalk
When Chandra's body was found on May 22, we started getting a list of clothing items supposedly found with it: sweat shirt, sweat pants, who knows what all. When I and other posters pointed out that she could never have been wearing all this at one time, the official list condensed to say that what was found was: spandex tights, T-shirt, panties, tube-type exercise bra, and ordinary sneakers (not running or specialty shoes). This at least brought it down to what might be worn at the same time.
However, it raised other questions. This is what someone might wear while working out on the weight machines in a gym [and oddly enough she was last seen, by the official time line, at a gym 2 blks from her apt] but one would NEVER jog or go on a long walk in spandex tights, and this seems a little chilly for 4/30 in DC unless in the very warmest part of the day.
BTW none of these clothes were said to be "worn" or ON the body, but just thrown out near it in a random fashion, and now the Enquirer says the tights were found around a tree clear up on the flatter area near the (official, maintained) West Ridge Trail in RCP!
We have seen speculation all along that Chandra maintained clothing at Gary's apartment, or her own, but that was all neatly packed by someone, in bags ready to leave, when her apt was searched 5/6/01. Only a few things left in drawers or closet.
It is totally non-credible that Chandra would have gone out to meet Gary, or to lunch with friends, or even to a bank or shopping, in the attire found on the slope in Rock Creek Park.
Even AT the gym, would she not have showered and changed back into something more street-worthy before going home?
I am wondering if these items, assuming what was found is only what we are now told, were WHAT SHE HAD IN A LOCKER AT THE GYM, to use just there while working out and then changed out of.
For a year, we were told that on Monday evening 4/30/01 she checked out of the gym and terminated her membership, saying she would soon move back to California. Suddenly about a month ago I began to see it said that the 4/30 transaction as evidenced by a receipt found in her apartment [virtually the ONLY thing found there: the apt had been sanitized and wiped clean of fingerprints]--showed Chandra not as having terminated, but as having PAID FOR ANOTHER MONTH--ie May, and thus continued her membership. Which is it? We are being told two stories. If the new story is true, was she really even planning to leave DC at ALL?
It has struck me that, if someone who was throwing out her bones (body, corpse) in Rock Creek Park had only a nude body, whether fresh or decomposing, and wanted to set it up to look like she had been attacked there...and this was after May 16, when all of Chandra's clothes had been taken by her parents...Where on earth could the perp get anything of hers? Answer: How about the contents of her gym locker, this one outfit she wore there while working out. [It was said that Gary and Dayton were also members of this gym.]
That might also account for the fact her name was sewn into certain seams...
Where was it said that there was sawing? Is the sawing a FACT? Or an Assumption?
I am now assuming it was chewed off by beetles working their way through the troll dung hypothesised by Crowcreek.
The remergence of this bone after a so called thorough search, leaves much to ponder.
Several posters have suggested the body might have been frozen to hold it at its then state, and I said maybe a meat saw was used...
It's likely that if the other bones are indeed missing (and not just overlooked), an animal or bum took them off.
It's a complete fabrication, a ploy for attention. Outrageous statements and stories offered up for (her) entertainment.
I see that DC police are still finding bones, but small ones.
Back when the coroner had his news conference, I thought he said that 92% of the skeleton had been recovered. Then later after the tibia was found, I heard it said that 87% of the skeleton had been recovered.
This raises the question, IF the left leg, includng pelvis were/are missing then what percentage would they have actually recovered? And IF the left leg, includng pelvis were missing, then how could they claim that 92 percent had been recovered? Wouldn't that decrease the percentage by quite a bit? More like 75%??
Anyone else recall the differing percentages?
As for the differing percentages, it's the ME was most likely lying, or perhaps just ignorant. (He may have just made up a number and never even got a good look at the skeeleton -- it's most likely been in FBI custody the whole time anyway. )
However, it does have benefits if one is seeking to hide a corpse. It seals it up and prevents a buried corpse,or a corpse stuffed in a shallow cavern, from becoming smelly and therefore detectable by cadaver dogs.
Though admittedly unlikely, if the corpse was covered in quicklime and then flensed with acid or something, I would think that would make for a rather brittle skeleton.
I don't think the murderer placing it there after a period of time is a simpler explanation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.