The Remains Site-Revisited

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
So close to the road. Almost looks like she was a "drive-by" dumping.
 
HOTNTX said:
So close to the road. Almost looks like she was a "drive-by" dumping.
Click to expand...

This isn't new right? It's the one we saw a few dumps back, IIRC.

I remember thinking then, as now, how unbelievable it is that she was so close o the road. Realizing that bothered me almost as much as the "31 days." :furious:
 
:waitasec:Maybe it's me, I noticed this the first time this was released. Does anyone else see where in that animation video there is a "High Lighted Area" away from the remains site? Like way behind it? It goes so fast and I have trouble seeing. Did anyone else notice that?
 
Wow! Haven't seen this before. When KC said that Caylee was close, she wasn't kidding!
 
MADJGNLAW said:
:waitasec:Maybe it's me, I noticed this the first time this was released. Does anyone else see where in that animation video there is a "High Lighted Area" away from the remains site? Like way behind it? It goes so fast and I have trouble seeing. Did anyone else notice that?
Click to expand...

Yes..
 
carrie said:
This isn't new right? It's the one we saw a few dumps back, IIRC.

I remember thinking then, as now, how unbelievable it is that she was so close o the road. Realizing that bothered me almost as much as the "31 days." :furious:
Click to expand...

Dunno-- I've never seen it, before.
 
MADJGNLAW said:
:waitasec:Maybe it's me, I noticed this the first time this was released. Does anyone else see where in that animation video there is a "High Lighted Area" away from the remains site? Like way behind it? It goes so fast and I have trouble seeing. Did anyone else notice that?
Click to expand...

I hadn't noticed that. gonna go back and watch it again. Wonder what it could mean? Wonder if a more computer savvy person than me could slow it down and/or freeze it so we could get a closer look.
 
Thanks. So close to the road as though hastily dumped. Makes me wonder if Casey was planning to go back to move the body, if only Cindy gave her one more day.
 
Anyone else find it rather ironic that the ad before this animation is for a video named 'Finding Happiness'? Guess that is what KC thought she was doing. :(
 
Was trying to find a "remains site" thread to bump so we don't over crowd the latest doc dump thread.

Figure this is as good as any. Unless JBean has one that could be better.

*bump*
 
There are so many remains site threads, that I am going to do some housekeeping and consolidate them. Many of the posts are just about one year old now, so many have changed their opinions and new facts have emerged.
So let's start with a fresh thread to revisit the remains site.
 
so, according to the water level study in the new docs, at the water's highest point (briefly in August), Area A (skull etc) would have had less than half a foot of water?

The area where they measured the water levels, 68 ft away from Area A, had a highest water level briefly in August of 2 ft. Area A is 1.5 ft higher elevation than the area where they measured.
 
seagull65 said:
so, according to the water level study in the new docs, at the water's highest point (briefly in August), Area A (skull etc) would have had less than half a foot of water?

The area where they measured the water levels, 68 ft away from Area A, had a highest water level briefly in August of 2 ft. Area A is 1.5 ft higher elevation than the area where they measured.
Click to expand...

My biggest problem with these numbers is that they could not replicate hurricane Faye. I would like to know if their computer program can adjust the model for a hurricane, maybe they can write in data from past hurricanes to get this more specific information.
 
I was wondering the same thing, Jayla. I think the elevation where the skull was is close enough in level to that of the curbline though that only so much water could accumulate there if you know what I mean, unless the whole street and houses were flooded also. At least when I looked at the remains site in Jan 09 that's what it looked like, but I could be wrong. So I wasn't surprised when I read this report (at least these pages of it that were released.)

I'll have to read it again to see to what degree the water statistics from the previous year were figured in (and maybe we'll see some more come out on this.)
 
Plus Area A is not entirely flat and the remains may have been at a lower level...not really sure, but if I remember some of the photos show one of the investigators standing in a lower level than the street where the picture was being taken. Plus didn't one of the reports say that the growth found amongst the bones had been under water at one point??? JMO Anyone else remember reading this?
 
yes, there is a slight slope downward from the curb line going back toward the woods.

There were lots of claims made that the remains site was waist deep in water and that was why the body was never seen/found/smelled there, that the area was not searched due to this water, etc. I got a lot of flack here for questioning that. But I couldn't see how the water could get waist deep at the remains site, just from looking at the site itself, I didn't see any deep depression there that could hold that much water, unless I was like totally looking in the wrong place, and judging from landmarks, etc, I didn't think I was looking in the wrong place.

The analysis of the water levels which was just released, if I'm reading it right, seems to say the remains site (Area A where the skull and lots of remains were for example) would not have been under more than 6 inches of water even when the water was at its highest point briefly (there would have been water briefly.) This makes sense to me because just going from what the area looked like, just visually it looks like if the water got much deeper than that in that place it would run off into the street.

At least I'd never heard reports that the street was flooded out/impassable or that the surrounding houses were flooded or anything like that, so I always doubted the "waist high" and similar claims about the water, and of course whatever amount of water there was wouldn't have been there the whole time.

I know what you mean, I think I recall some pictures too where you see investigators in a deeper area, IIRC.
 
I guess he did factor in the rainfall statistics from 2008 in the conclusion:

quoting from the water level analysis by Dr. Jawitz (my typing, please excuse typos):

"This analysis indicates that for most of the entire period from 16 June 2008 to 11 December 2008,
Area A was not inundated. The water level at the site was high enough to submerge Area A
between 18 August 2008 and 28 August 2008. On 18 August, the average river stage was 6.94 ft,
but between 18 August and 23 August, 8.17 in of rain fell in the area (measured at MCO). By 22
August, the river stage had risen to 10.99 ft (daily average) and decreased thereafter, returning
to less than 9 ft (8.84 ft) on 28 August."


http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/120909anthony/1/lg/12379-12388_Page_07.htmI
 
I'm still baffled by why the water level is even an issue. The dump site is close to the Anthony's home, well within the typical dump range of a killer mom. Add to that the witness statements that that specific area was frequented by KC, and it seems to me questioning the searchers and water statistics are moot points.

The only real mystery about the dump site remaining, at least IMO, is what the detectives were doing there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 140 more.
Total: 3,451 (members: 141, guests: 3,310)

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
3,310
Total visitors
3,451
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,123
Messages
17,963,618
Members
228,689
Latest member
Melladanielle
Back
Top